UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2012

Smart Fishing Initiative COMPARISON OF WILD-CAPTURE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

Prepared by James Sullivan Consulting OUR SMART FISHING VISION AND GOALS

Vision: The world’s oceans are healthy, well-managed and full of life, providing valuable resources for the welfare of humanity.

2020 Goals: The responsible management and trade of four key fishery populations results in recovering and resilient marine ecosystems, improved livelihoods for coastal communities and strengthened food security for the Planet.

WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with over 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries.

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

Written and edited by James Sullivan Consulting Image front cover: © Tatjana Gerling/WWF More information Daniel Suddaby Published in September 2012 by WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature Tuna Manager (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland. Smart Fishing Initiative Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the [email protected] above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. Tel: + 44 (0) 207 221 5395 © Text 2012 WWF, All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

DEFINITIONS...... 2

ACRONYMS...... 3

1. INTRODUCTION...... 4 a. Updating the 2009 ADP report...... 4 i. Changes in certification schemes...... 5 ii. Changes in fisheries management...... 5

2. SELECTION OF SCHEMES FOR REVIEW...... 6 a. Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute...... 6 b. Friend of the Sea...... 6 c. Iceland Responsible Fisheries...... 6 d. Marine Stewardship Council...... 6

3. STUDY APPROACH...... 7 a. Scope and scoring methodology...... 7 Scope...... 7 Scoring...... 7 b. New criteria added to this report...... 8 Selection of new criteria ...... 8 Validation criteria ...... 9 Ecological criteria...... 9

4. SCHEMES REVIEWED...... 11 a. Detailed overview of certification schemes...... 11 b. Program typologies ...... 13 c. Scope of schemes...... 14

5. RESULTS...... 15 a. Participation...... 15 b. Results summaries...... 15 Scoring summaries...... 15 Quantitative evaluation ...... 16 Full scoring breakdowns...... 17 Observations...... 23 c. Rankings...... 27 d. Comparisons with 2009...... 29

6. CONCLUSIONS...... 31

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page i 7. SUMMARY...... 32 Standard setting structures and procedures...... 32 Accreditation and certification structures...... 32 Accreditation and certification procedures...... 33 Ecological criteria...... 33 Fisheries management system criteria...... 33 Traceability criteria...... 33 New validation criteria...... 33 New ecological criteria...... 33

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY...... 34

ANNEX 1: SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL...... 35 Guide to completing the 2012 wild fisheries Certification scheme self-assessment tool...... 35 THEME 1: Governance, structure and procedures of ecolabelling scheme...... 39 THEME 2: Contents of standards: ecological, fisheries management system traceability criteria...... 45 New validation criteria...... 50 New ecological criteria...... 52

ANNEX 2: THE AUTHORS...... 56 Mr. James Sullivan...... 56 Dr. Susanna Fuller...... 57 Mr. Jordan Nikoloyuk...... 58

ENDNOTES...... 59

page ii WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2009, WWF commissioned Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP) to carry out and report on an assessment of on-pack wild-capture seafood sustainability certification programs and seafood ecolabels. The purpose of the 2009 study was to benchmark a wide range of seafood sustainability certification and ecolabel programs. A total of 17 such programs were reviewed. This report presents the results of an updated and enhanced analysis of four certification schemes, including the Alaskan Seafood Marketing Institute, the Friend of the Sea, Iceland Responsible Fisheries1 and the Marine Stewardship Council, all of which have undergone significant changes in their programs and requirements since the publication of the 2009 report.

As the certification and ecolabel programs evaluated in the 2009 report were themselves fairly new, the oldest of which was founded in 1997, it is reasonable to expect that these programs would continue to develop and respond to changes in the growing understanding of how wild fisheries stocks should be best managed, and to the transparency, credibility and accountability expectations held by stakeholders and users of schemes. There is also an increasing expectation that certification schemes—particularly those which have been in existence for a decade or more—are resulting in changes on the water.

This report uses the original criteria included in the 2009 report as well as two new sets of criteria not included in the original Accenture report. These new sets focus on the validation of the programs of the schemes themselves as well as recently developed international consensus-based guidelines for the management of wild fisheries. These new sets of criteria allow us to consider whether or not and to what degree the schemes are responding to changing expectations about how their programs should be managed, how wild fish stocks should be maintained, and the standards to which credible certification schemes should aspire.

The assessment criteria used in this study reflect the priorities of WWF. The priorities of other stakeholders, users or consumers may produce a different set of criteria. This report is not a final or absolute evaluation of the performance or credibility of these schemes. The purpose of this study is to contribute a detailed analysis against one specific set of criteria.

The owners and managers of certification schemes that focus on wild fisheries are under considerable pressure to develop their schemes, improve their documentation, clarify and interpret their requirements, and add new elements that reflect the rapidly changing consensus for both the management of certification schemes and the sustainability of wild fisheries.

This study identified a number of strengths and a number of weaknesses in the four schemes evaluated. The authors of this study note that all of the schemes evaluated have undergone significant changes in their practices, procedures and structures since 2009. The changes include both improvements to systems that existed in 2009 as well as the addition of new requirements and procedures that were in place at the time of the initial ADP analysis.

None of the standards analyzed in this report are in complete compliance with the criteria identified and defined by WWF as crucial to an ecolabel or certification program. The Marine Stewardship Council is the only scheme that was found in this report to be considered compliant with the topic areas in which related criteria are grouped. It should be noted that MSC is not fully compliant with the new ecological criteria in this report.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 1 Smart Fishing Initiative

DEFINITIONS TERM DEFINITION Accreditation Procedure by which a competent authority gives formal recognition that a qualified body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks(FAO Guidelines: 8, based on ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1996, 12.11)

Accreditation body Body that conducts and administers an accreditation system and grants accreditation (FAO Guidelines: 9, based on ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1996, 17.2)

Accreditation system System that has its own rules of procedure and management for carrying out accreditation (FAO Guidelines: 10, based on ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1996, 17.1)

Assessment criteria WWF defined sustainable fishing certification criteria Certification Procedure by which a third party gives written or equivalent assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements(FAO Guidelines: 14, based on ISO Guide 2: 15.1.2)

Certification body Competent and recognised body that conducts certification. A certification body may oversee certification activities carried out on its behalf by other bodies (FAO Guidelines: 15, based on ISO Guide 2: 15.2)

Chain of custody The set of measures designed to guarantee that the product put on the market and bearing the ecolabel logo is actually a product coming from the certified fishery concerned(FAO Guidelines: 16)

Criterion (criteria) Variable used in this project to specify performance requirements against which compliance can be assessed

Ecolabel Mark of approval or certification, usually a product label or scheme logo, that denotes the product meets a specified standard

FAO Guidelines Guidelines on Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (FAO, 2005)

Standard Document approved by a recognised organisation or arrangement that provides for the common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods with which compliance is not mandatory under international trade rules. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. (FAO Guidelines: 22; based on TBT Agreement, Annex 1) Standard, in these criteria, refers to a standard for certification, including requirements, criteria and performance elements in a hierarchical arrangement. For each requirement, one or more substantive criteria should be defined. For each criterion, one or more performance elements should be provided for use in assessment. (Based on FAO Guidelines: 22)

Standard setter Organisation or arrangement that has recognised activities in standard setting (ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996)

Traceability Ability to track the movement of a food product through specific stages of production, processing and distribution along the product’s supply chain

Third party Person or body recognised as being independent of the parties involved as concerns the issues in question (ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996)

page 2 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Smart Fishing Initiative

ACRONYMS ACRONYM DEFINITION ADP Accenture Development Partnerships ASMI Alaskan Seafood Marketing Institute CB Certification body COFI Committee on Fisheries, FAO EBM Ecosystem-Based Management FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IMO International Maritime Organization ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance ISO International Organisation for Standardisation MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978

PET Protected, endangered or threatened species RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization TBT Technical Barriers to Trade (a WTO agreement) UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement UNGA United Nations General Assembly WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 3 1. INTRODUCTION In 2009, WWF commissioned Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP) to carry out and report on an Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels2. Market-based approach to improving wild-capture fisheries practices, with the goal of restoring stocks and minimizing fisheries related ecosystem impacts, have gained increasing acceptance in the conservation community as well as recognition by consumers. As fisheries are certified or market-based programs initiated, there is an expectation that fishing practices will change and—depending on a biologically appropriate time scale for the stock or ecosystem in question—improvements will be observed.

Since the 2009 report, a number of changes in both policy and practice have occurred. Of greatest interest to WWF are changes to the MSC and Friend of the Sea, as well as the establishment of Global Trust’s Alaskan and Icelandic schemes: the Alaskan Seafood Marketing Institute scheme and Responsible Fisheries Iceland. WWF also has a growing interest in the external validation of assessment results conducted under all the schemes. Validation refers to what is happening “on the water”: the measurable impacts of changes in fisheries management and operations as a result of changes required to achieve and maintain certification.

The analysis reported here builds on the 2009 ADP report and has been conducted with the following objectives: • provide a clear and independent review of changes to the MSC, Friend of the Sea, Alaskan Seafood Marketing Institute Certification Program and the Iceland Responsible Fisheries Program based on the original criteria used in the ADP report; and, • evaluate the four schemes against additional criteria for external validation of results and sustainability of certified fisheries based on currently accepted best practices.

a. Updating the 2009 ADP Report Wild fisheries certification schemes are relatively new on the global scene. This is marked by the founding of the Marine Stewardship Council in 1997, and the development of numerous seafood ranking programs and additional certification schemes in the last thirteen years. These schemes have been growing in sophistication for a number of reasons, including in response to market pressures and the evolving understanding of how wild fisheries should be managed, as well as to the need for greater transparency, accountability and verification of certification systems.

Increasing awareness of consumer-facing schemes as well as continued decline of wild fish stocks and marine ecosystem health has lead to numerous academic articles on the efficacy of certification schemes, particularly regarding the success of such schemes in improving fisheries practices and ecosystem outcomes on the water3.

This report updates the analysis of the 2009 ADP report by rescoring the original criteria and by adding new criteria in two categories.

page 4 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Introduction

i. Changes in certification schemes Since the 2009 report, ISO Guide 654, which lists the requirements for organizations that certify products, processes and services, has been revised. Following the phase-in period it will be replaced by ISO Guide 170655. This new document includes an annex titled “Principles for product certification bodies and their certification activities”. This annex clearly lays out a core set of principles that may be used to guide the work of certification bodies (CBs). The addition of this annex is a milestone in better articulating the fundamentals of responsible certification.

The ISEAL Alliance has followed this trend by focusing on the scheme owner, in a process that can complement Annex A in ISO Guide 17065. Two key documents are being developed and express codes of practice for accountability and verification. While at the time of this report neither of these has been finalized, they are a clear indication of the direction in which evolving expectations for scheme owners is progressing. ii. Changes in fisheries management In the last decade, several initiatives at the international level have influenced fisheries management practices within national waters and through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), which came into force in 2001, has been followed by several sustainable fisheries resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Particularly since 2004, the sustainable fisheries resolutions have increasingly influenced fisheries management processes as countries increase their commitment to sustainable fisheries within their territorial seas and in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

These have focused on a series of issues related to the ecosystem impacts of fishing and overfishing. The FAO has held technical consultations to develop practical guidelines for implementation in fisheries management systems. The resulting guidelines, particularly on deep sea fisheries and bycatch, give a clear indication of the deepening understanding of how wild fish stocks should be managed. These include both those stocks that migrate across jurisdictional lines and those in international waters.

These new guidelines present a challenge to certification schemes that must update their standards to be consistent with international best practices. The incorporation of these new guidelines into standards and certification requirements is part of an ongoing updating process. An examination of how well, and to what degree, certification schemes are responding to these new guidelines can provide an opportunity to evaluate the priority each places on remaining current with the best and widely accepted approaches to wild fisheries management.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 5 2. SELECTION OF SCHEMES FOR REVIEW All four of the ecolabelling schemes evaluated in this report have undergone significant changes since the 2009 ADP study. The four schemes selected are: a. Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute introduced their third-party, FAO-Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Program in September 2011. The Alaska requirements include the FAO-Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Program: Conformance Criteria, Version 1.2 (2011)6 and Responsible Fisheries Management Chain of Custody Standard for Alaska Seafood (2011).7 This third-party certification scheme is the successor to the second-party scheme that was reviewed in the 2009 ADP study.

b. Friend of the Sea Since the 2009 study was completed, Friend of the Sea has updated their scheme requirements including the Certification and Accreditation Procedure (2009)8, Friend of the Sea Certification Criteria Checklist for Wild Catch Fisheries (2010)9, and Friend of the Sea Certification Criteria Checklist for Tuna Purse Seine and Longline Fleets (2010).10

c. Iceland Responsible Fisheries The Fisheries Association of Iceland announced the Iceland Responsible Fisheries Program in October 2008. It was introduced in September 2011. Core documentation for this program includes FAO-Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Program: Conformance Criteria, Version 1.2 (2011)11 and Responsible Fisheries Management Chain of Custody Specification (2011).12 The program reviewed in this report is the third-party scheme that was being developed at the time of the 2009 study.

d. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Since the 2009 study was completed, MSC has revised all of its scheme requirements documentation, and it has standardized the process for ongoing updates. Policy changes have included a consolidation of accreditation and certification requirements (MSC Certification Requirements, 201213), review and revision of the MSC Chain of Custody Standard (2011)14, the new MSC Standard Setting Procedure (2011)15, and the introduction of new policies covering forage fisheries and low-trophic level fisheries. MSC is currently consulting on a wide range of policies as part of a process to attempt to ensure that its criteria for assessment represent actual fisheries management measures.

page 6 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update 3. STUDY APPROACH This study is based on two major considerations: • That a credible ecolabelling scheme is fully documented • That its requirements conform to the documented guidelines of recognized and credible authorities

This project had two main phases: I. Criteria review and development II. Data gathering and evaluation

The first phase included: • A review of the ADP criteria • The development of new criteria for the evaluation of external verification by the schemes • The development of an additional set of criteria for the evaluation of the sustainability of certified fisheries

These new criteria were developed in cooperation with WWF.

The second phase included: • Application of the original criteria and the new criteria on external validation to the three schemes identified by WWF • Invitation to each of the four schemes to participate in this study through a self- assessment tool. This self-assessment tool is included as Annex 1. • Scoring by the consultant team of the four schemes, taking into consideration information submitted as part of the self assessment • Comparison of scoring outcomes for the four schemes • Documentation of observations related to scoring of individual criteria

a. Scope and scoring methodology i. Scope The scope of this study is limited to the geographic areas and wild fisheries included in the scope of each scheme. This means that a criterion that is not relevant to the scope of an individual scheme is not evaluated. For example, the elements of the criteria that address the specific issues in the developing world were not evaluated for the Alaska and Iceland schemes.

ii. Scoring This study applies the scoring methodology developed and applied by ADP in their original study. The same methodology is applied to the additional criteria developed for this study.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 7 Study Approach

The scoring was explained in the ADP report as follows:

3.4 SCORING PROCEDURES FOR INDIVIDUAL ECOLABEL SCHEMES The following section sets out the scoring procedures for individual ecolabel schemes, explaining the scoring values and how they are applied to each criterion. It also specifies how the criteria which are not scored (because they are outside the scope of the individual scheme which is being assessed) are dealt with. The scoring templates are provided in the annex.

3.4.1 Scoring scale A simple scoring scale has been adopted to enable assessors to distinguish between different levels of compliance with the criteria. The table below sets out the values that should be applied to each of the 103 criteria. Scores may be partial, full or exceeding compliance with each criterion. A negative score may also be assigned for the absence of a particular issue or subject related to a criterion – this may be an obvious and deliberate omission of an important issue from a standard or the governing or operational structure of a scheme. To allow for the possibility that n absence of information prevents the assessment from determining whether an issue is present or absent from a scheme or standard, a scoring value of zero has been allocated.

To account for the differing scope and contexts of ecolabelling schemes, auditors may discard one or more criteria from the analysis. If this occurs, auditors must adjust the scoring template for the scheme and provide a clear, written rationale for doing so. Assigning the various scores should be based upon the available information.

CRITERIA SCORING SCALE 0 Not enough information to determine presence or absence of criterion- subject within standard scheme

1 Partially meets criterion 2 Fully meets criterion 3 Exceeds criterion16

While the criteria from the 2009 ADP study are scored in this study, the team which undertook this work did not have access to the scores awarded for each criterion by the ADP team. The team working on this report only had access to scoring information contained in the summary scores as published in the 2009 report.

As a result, it was not possible to compare the scores awarded for each criterion in this study with those from the 2009 study. As a result, some variation in scores between the two studies may occur for individual criteria. Therefore, it is not possible to fully compare the quantitative results of this study to those from 2009.

b. New criteria added to this report i. Selection of new criteria The new criteria were selected based on the following: • Source material is proposed or adopted by recognized international organizations that seek to build consensus. Where appropriate we considered material from peer- reviewed publications that reflect an emerging expert consensus. • Elements identified from WWF’s own work • The new material was not already covered by the ADP 2009 criteria

page 8 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Study Approach

ii. Validation criteria The new set of validation criteria includes 16 additional criteria under the following categories: • Auditor competence (6) • Oversight (7) • Risk mitigation plan (3)

The sources for the validation criteria are: • ISO 17065 Conformity Assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,17 Annex A – Principles for product certification bodies and their certification activities. This list of principles was developed along with this new document and serves as a guide to the core elements for conformity assessment bodies conducting certification activities for schemes covered by this guide. • ISEAL Credibility Principles.18 These 13 principles identify concepts and actions that should be the foundation of effective certification schemes. • Code of Good Practice for Assuring Conformance with Social and Environmental Standards.19 This codifies the best practice for the design and implementation of social and environmental standards.

These documents reflect a growing consensus on a more comprehensive understanding of how certification is to be evaluated. It should be noted that all of these documents are either long established drafts (in the case of ISEAL) or recently adopted and so not fully implemented (in the case of ISO). The reference source in ISO 17065 is Annex A , which is informative and, therefore, not a required section of this new guide. However, it is a comprehensive list of the principles that should guide certification that conforms to ISO 1065. iii. Ecological criteria In addition to the ecological criteria presented in the 2009 ADP report, 28 additional criteria under the following categories are included: • Unit of certification (1) • Stock status (1) • Non-target species (10) • Ecosystem/habitats (7) • Forage fisheries (3) • Pollution of water (2) • Loss of fishing gear (1) • Subsidies (2)

• Use of energy and CO2 emissions (1)

The addition of these criteria is warranted by substantial progress in fisheries management guidance since 2009. The additional criteria are based on new technical frameworks, peer-reviewed literature or internationally agreed upon conventions. As certification of marine fisheries progresses and evolves, it must also keep pace with changes in fisheries management regimes. This is particularly important as the ecosystem approach and precautionary approach are expressed in tangible, on-the-water changes in how fisheries can mitigate impacts on the marine ecosystem. Since the 2009 ADP report reviewing fisheries certification and ranking schemes, there has been progress in both international and national fisheries management, including new agreements at the level of the United Nations General Assembly and stronger national policy frameworks.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 9 Study Approach

We have focused on the following guidelines, papers and conventions to support the legitimacy of the additional criteria: • The 2010 FAO Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards20 represent a progression in guidance and best practices for mitigating the incidental capture of non-target species in a variety of fishing gear types. • The 2008 FAO Guidelines for the Management Deep Sea Fisheries21 are the result of technical consultations relating to the Sustainable Fisheries Resolutions 59/25 and 61/105 negotiated at the United Nations General Assembly in 200422 and 200623 where significant wording was adopted pertaining to the management of bottom fishing activities, particularly on the high seas. The identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems and their subsequent protection, as well as the practice of conducting impact assessment of fisheries, have become an integral part of managing bottom fisheries on the high seas. State measures are required by UNFSA to be compatible with measures on the high seas, and many countries are adopting and implementing policies to better regulate the impacts of fishing activities on the sea floor. • Concern about trophic cascades and the impacts of removing forage species from the marine environment, often for use in fishmeal, resulted in a scientific task force to explore recommendations for fisheries management changes regarding forage species. These recommendations are outlined in the Lenfest Report entitled Little Fish, Big Impact.24 It is expected that these recommendations will begin to influence fisheries management policy decisions regarding forage species. • The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Annex IV)25 is an existing international agreement on ship-source pollution, including practices to prevent waste at sea and loss of fishing gear that should be standard practice for most fishing vessels. • Public subsidies to ecologically damaging fishing practices are becoming increasingly controversial. We’ve referred to the 2004 Healthy Fisheries, Sustainable Trade26 and 2011 WWF Reforming Fisheries Subsidies briefing27 as a baseline for subsidy criteria.

page 10 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update 4. SCHEMES REVIEWED a. Detailed overview of certification schemes

TABLE 1. CERTIFICATION SCHEMES: ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE NAME AND LOGO SUMMARY OF SCOPE FOR ECOLABELLING SCHEME Alaska Seafood In order to provide credible verification of what Alaska has been doing for Marketing Institute over 50 years, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) is now offering a choice in certification. This new independent, third-party certification of Does not use a the management of the major Alaska commercial fisheries is directly based certification logo on the respected FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Code) and the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (Guidelines) – both recognized around the globe

as the best criteria for responsible fisheries management. SCHEME OBJECTIVES What was the driving • Alaska has always been deeply committed to ensuring that its wild, force for the scheme’s natural and delicious seafood can be enjoyed by generations to come. creation? Why was the • ASMI is not developing a new consumer-facing ecolabel. The certification ecolabel created? will help to enhance the Alaska origin as a leading source of sustainable seafood.

• Certification will provide additional assurance to buyers, markets and stakeholders that seafood from Alaska is responsibly managed.

What are the main • Demonstrate conformity to the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible objectives or aims of the Fisheries and the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery ecolabelling scheme? Products. What is its mission? • Avoid the need for multiple certifications of the same fishery. • Enhance Alaska’s position as a leading source of sustainable seafood. • Provide a respected and credible alternative to other ecolabel programs. • Provide additional assurance to buyers, markets and stakeholders that seafood from Alaska is responsibly managed. SOURCE: http://sustainability.alaskaseafood.org/certification

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 11 Schemes Reviewed

TABLE 2. CERTIFICATION SCHEMES: FRIEND OF THE SEA NAME AND LOGO SUMMARY OF SCOPE FOR ECOLABELLING SCHEME Friend of the Sea Friend of the Sea is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation (NGO), whose mission is to conserve the marine habitat.

SCHEME OBJECTIVES What was the driving • Friend of the Sea was founded by Dr. Paolo Bray, European Director force for the scheme’s of the Earth Island Institute’s Dolphin-Safe Project. The Dolphin-Safe creation? Why was the Project saved millions of dolphins from dying in tuna nets and started the ecolabel created? sustainable seafood movement. What are the main • Follow the FAO “Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery objectives or aims Products from Marine Capture Fisheries.” In particular, only products from of the ecolabelling stocks which are not overexploited can be certified. scheme? • Deploy an International Monitoring Program to verify on site the chain of What is its mission? custody of approved suppliers of Friend of the Sea products. • Pricing structure is affordable also to artisanal fisheries and small-scale producers, which represent over 50 per cent of the Friend of the Sea certified products. SOURCE: www.friendofthesea.org

TABLE 3: CERTIFICATION SCHEMES: ICELAND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES NAME AND LOGO SUMMARY OF SCOPE FOR ECOLABELLING SCHEME Iceland The Iceland Responsible Fisheries programme is the direct result of proactive Responsible discussions and interactions with fishermen, packers, processors, markets, Fisheries regulators, standards and certification experts. Plans for the certification of Icelandic fisheries were officially announced by the Fisheries Association of Iceland in October 2008. The FAO-ISO-Based Iceland Responsible Fisheries Management Programme is based on the articles and minimum substantive criteria described in the FAO “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” and “FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products.” SCHEME OBJECTIVES What was the driving • Adoption and implementation of a structured fisheries management system. force for the scheme’s The objective is to limit the total annual catch from the fish stocks so that creation? Why was the catches confirm to levels permitted by the relevant authorities. ecolabel created? • Fish stock shall not be overfished and this shall be verified through scientific research and assessment by international experts. • Implementation of an effective legal and administrative framework for the fishery, with compliance ensured through effective mechanisms for monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement. • Effects of the fishery on the ecosystem are limited by the application of a specified approach. What are the main • Responsible fisheries management. objectives or aims of the • Good treatment of marine resources. ecolabelling scheme? What is its mission?

SOURCE: www.responsiblefisheries.is/certification

page 12 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Schemes Reviewed

TABLE 4. CERTIFICATION SCHEMES: MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL NAME AND LOGO SUMMARY OF SCOPE FOR ECOLABELLING SCHEME Marine Stewardship The MSC’s fishery certification program and seafood ecolabel recognize and Council reward sustainable fishing. They are a global organisation working with fisheries, seafood companies, scientists, conservation groups and the public to promote the best environmental choice in seafood.

SCHEME OBJECTIVES What was the driving • The MSC’s vision is of the world’s oceans teeming with life, and seafood force for the scheme’s supplies safeguarded for this and future generations. creation? Why was the ecolabel created?

What are the main • The MSC’s mission is to use the ecolabel and fishery certification objectives or aims of the programme to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by ecolabelling scheme? recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the What is its mission? choices people make when buying seafood, and working with partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable one. • Collaborate with fishers, retailers, processors, consumers and others to drive change forward. • Never compromise on the environmental standard set by the MSC, nor on the independence of the MSC program. • Continue to lead the world in wild-capture fishery certification, with the most trusted, recognized and credible seafood ecolabel. SOURCE: www.msc.org

b. Program typologies TABLE 5. REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION SCHEME PROGRAM TYPES ALASKA SEAFOOD ICELAND MARINE MARKETING FRIEND OF RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP NAME INSTITUTE THE SEA FISHERIES COUNCIL CATEGORY First Party Second Party Third Party • • • • Other Ecolabel Scheme • • • SCHEME OWNER AND OPERATOR Government Private: Industry • • Private: Environmental • • Private: Other PARTICIPATION AND OPENNESS Voluntary • • • • Mandatory Open (non-discriminatory) Restricted Description Geographical Geographical Worldwide restriction: Worldwide for restriction: for wild fisheries, only fish wild and only fish including some from Alaska farmed fish from Iceland enhanced fisheries

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 13 Schemes Reviewed

c. Scope of schemes

TABLE 6. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ALASKA SEAFOOD ICELAND MARINE MARKETING FRIEND RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP NAME INSTITUTE OF THE SEA FISHERIES COUNCIL GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE Global • Fisheries • Fisheries and/or and/or suppliers in suppliers in 31 countries 80 countries certified certified Regional National • Iceland Subnational • Alaska Local PRODUCT AND MARKET SCOPE Marine species Inland species Wild-capture only • 5 certified • 4 certified fisheries fisheries Wild-capture and enhanced • ~41 • 172 certified certified fisheries fisheries Aquaculture • 50 certified producers

page 14 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update 5. RESULTS a. Participation All four of the schemes were contacted by the authors of this study and invited to participate. Copies of the self-assessment tool (see Annex 1) were sent to all of the schemes. Each was invited to provide information on some, or all of the criteria evaluated in this study.

Only one scheme chose to participate by completing the self-assessment tool.

All schemes were evaluated against the study criteria using publically available information.

b. Results summaries Results are based entirely on a review of publicly available documentation. Each scheme itself may have policies and procedures not available to the public that address some or all of the criteria in this study. Any information disclosed by the schemes on the project self-assessment tool is considered to be publically available.

i. Scoring summaries The certification schemes generally score higher in criteria related to ecological issues and fishery management systems than in the governance, structure and procedures themes (Tables 7 and 8). In some cases this may reflect a scheme’s focus on developing a stringent standard. However, it should be noted that it proved to be possible for a scheme to partially meet many ecological and fisheries management criteria by incorporating language from guidelines like FAO documents, but not providing any means of operationalizing, scoring or measuring compliance with the standard. It is important to consider the combination of scores from across themes. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5 b ii.

Tables 7 and 8 present the aggregated scores of individual topics of selected ecolabels. The highest scores per topic are highlighted in green.

TABLE 7. SCORING SUMMARIES USING 2009 CRITERIA ONLY

THEME 1 THEME 2 Governance, Structures Content of and Procedures Ecolabel Standards Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5 Topic 6 Standard setting Accreditation Accreditation structures and and Fisheries and certification certification Ecological management Ecolabelling Scheme procedures structures procedures sustainability system Traceability Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 0.04 0.80 0.62 1.60 1.57 1.83 Friend of the Sea 0.46 1.60 0.81 1.74 1.06 1.17 Iceland Responsible Fisheries 0.125 0.80 0.28 1.625 1.61 1.83 Marine Stewardship Council 2.17 2.00 2.05 2.08 2.07 2.00

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 15 Results

TABLE 8: SCORING SUMMARIES OF NEWLY DEVELOPED CRITERIA

THEME 1 THEME 2 Updated Validation Criteria Updated Ecological Criteria Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5 Topic 6 Risk Non- Ecosystem Other Auditor mitigation target and habitat updated Ecolabelling Scheme competence Oversight plan species impacts criteria Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 0 0.15 0 0.65 0.86 1.04 Friend of the Sea 0.17 0.43 0 1.10 0.93 0.91 Iceland Responsible Fisheries 0 0.15 0 1.40 1 0.54 Marine Stewardship Council 1.17 1.71 1.33 1.10 0.78 1.09

ii. Quantitative evaluation A weighted average score of individual schemes was produced from the original criteria developed by ADP in 2009, and from the set of original and updated criteria. The original report applied quantitative appraisal indicators based on the criteria below (Table 9). These have also been used here in order to allow for back comparison of results as well as comparison of results between schemes. It is important to note that the term “compliant” is used to describe whether a label met the criteria gathered by WWF rather than implying any form of standard setting by WWF or any other organization.

TABLE 9. DESCRIPTION OF SCORING CATEGORIES. APPRAISAL INDICATOR PERFORMANCE DETAILS Compliant Minimum score of 1.500 per topic Semi-compliant Average score above 1.000, but a minimum score of at least 1.000 per topic is lower than 1.500

Non-compliant Minimum average score for all topics lower than 1.000

Using the criteria in Table 9 for quantitative analysis, only one of the assessed certification schemes, the Marine Stewardship Council, is fully compliant with the criteria. The other three assessed schemes are semi-compliant, with average scores only slightly above 1.000. When updated criteria are included in the scoring, performance drops slightly across all certification schemes with the exception of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

TABLE 10. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION BASED ON 2009 CRITERIA ONLY

WEIGHTED AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE IN % TO AVERAGE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA APPRAISAL RANKING ECOLABEL NAME SCORE SCORE REQUIREMENTS INDICATOR 1 Marine Stewardship Council 2.063 103% Compliant 2 Friend of the Sea 1.137 57% Semi-compliant 3 Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 1.079 54% Semi-compliant 4 Iceland Responsible Fisheries 1.048 52% Semi-compliant

page 16 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

TABLE 11. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION-BASED CRITERIA INCLUDING 2009 AND ADDITIONAL CRITERIA

WEIGHTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVERAGE SCORE SCORE IN % TO INCLUDING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA APPRAISAL RANKING ECOLABEL NAME UPDATED CRITERIA SCORE REQUIREMENTS INDICATOR 1 Marine Stewardship Council 1.854 93% Compliant 2 Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 1.081 54% Semi-compliant 3 Friend of the Sea 1.011 51% Semi-compliant 4 Iceland Responsible Fisheries 0.921 46% Non-compliant

iii. Full scoring breakdowns The following tables show the results of the assessment of individual certification schemes against the criteria compiled by WWF for the 2009 ADP report, as well as the additional validation and ecological criteria. Topics 1 through 6 designed by ADP and the additional validation and ecological criteria are all weighted equally in the determination of the total score. Each criterion is weighted equally under each topic.

Scores are presented in percentages as well as decimal scores. A percentage of contribution of 100% represents an average score of 2.00 across a topic or issue area.

TABLE 12: FULL ASSESSMENT OF ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE SCHEME ECOLABELLING SCHEME: ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE CONTRIBUTION NEEDED PER PERFORMED PERFORMED TOPIC TO MEET CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT PER TOPIC TO TOPIC THEME TOPIC TOPIC WITHIN TOPIC CRITERIA IN % SCORE

Governance, Structure and Procedures Structural and procedural criteria for ecolabelling schemes Standard setting structures and procedures 1.565 3% 0.043 Stakeholder participation in standard setting 0.435 0% 0.000 Total per topic 2.000 2% 0.043

Accreditation and certification structure Accreditation and certification structures 2.000 40% 0.800 Total per topic 2.000 40% 0.800

Accreditation and certification procedures Accreditation and certification procedures 1.714 31% 0.524 Stakeholder participation in conformity assessment 0.286 333% 0.095 Total per topic 2.000 31% 0.619

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 17 Results

Content of Standards Ecological criteria Unit of certification and stock under consideration 0.500 90% 0.450 Outcome oriented 0.100 50% 0.050 Status of the stock(s) under consideration (target stocks) 0.400 70% 0.280 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem 1.000 83% 0.825 Total per topic 2.000 80% 1.605

Fisheries management system criteria Fisheries management system criteria 2.000 79% 1.574 Total per topic 2.000 79% 1.574

Traceability criteria Traceability criteria 2.000 92% 1.833 Total per topic 2.000 92% 1.833

Total Weighted Average of all Topics 2.000 54% 1.079 Updated Validation Criteria Updated validation criteria Auditor competence 0.750 0% 0.000 Oversight 0.875 7% 0.063 Risk mitigation plan 0.375 0% 0.063 Total per topic 2.000 3% 0.125

Updated Ecological Criteria Updated ecological criteria Non-target species 0.714 33% 0.232 Ecosystem and habitat Impacts 0.500 43% 0.214 Other ecological criteria 0.786 52% 0.411 Total per topic 2.000 43% 0.857

Total Weighted Average of all Topics Including Updated 2.000 54% 1.081

TABLE 13: FULL ASSESSMENT OF FRIEND OF THE SEA SCHEME ECOLABELLING SCHEME: FRIEND OF THE SEA CONTRIBUTION NEEDED PER PERFORMED PERFORMED TOPIC TO MEET CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT PER TOPIC TO TOPIC THEME TOPIC TOPIC WITHIN TOPIC CRITERIA IN % SCORE

Governance, Structure and Procedures Structural and procedural criteria for ecolabelling schemes Standard setting structures and procedures 1.583 26% 0.417 Stakeholder participation in standard setting 0.417 10% 0.042 Total per topic 2.000 23% 0.458

page 18 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

Accreditation and certification structure Accreditation and certification structures 2.000 80% 1.600 Total per topic 2.000 80% 1.600

Accreditation and certification procedures Accreditation and certification procedures 1.714 36% 0.619 Stakeholder participation in conformity assessment 0.286 67% 0.191 Total per topic 2.000 40% 0.810

Content of Standards Ecological criteria Unit of certification and stock under consideration 0.588 100% 0.588 Outcome oriented 0.118 100% 0.118 Status of the stock(s) under consideration (target stocks) 0.235 83% 0.196 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem 1.059 81% 0.853 Total per topic 2.000 87% 1.755

Fisheries management system criteria Fisheries management system criteria 2.000 53% 1.058 Total per topic 2.000 53% 1.058

Traceability criteria Traceability criteria 2.000 58% 1.167 Total per topic 2.000 58% 1.167

Total Weighted Average of all Topics 2.000 57% 1.141 Updated Validation Criteria Updated validation criteria Auditor competence 0.750 8% 0.063 Oversight 0.875 21% 0.188 Risk mitigation plan 0.375 0% 0.000 Total per topic 2.000 13% 0.250

Updated Ecological Criteria Updated ecological criteria Non-target species 0.714 55% 0.393 Ecosystem and habitat impacts 0.500 46% 0.232 Other ecological criteria 0.786 50% 0.393 Total per topic 2.000 51% 1.018

Total Weighted Average of all Topics Including Updated 2.000 51% 1.014

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 19 Results

TABLE 14: FULL ASSESSMENT OF ICELAND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES SCHEME ECOLABELLING SCHEME: ICELAND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES NEEDED PER PERFORMED PERFORMED TOPIC TO MEET CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT PER TOPIC TO TOPIC THEME TOPIC TOPIC WITHIN TOPIC CRITERIA IN % SCORE

Governance, Structure and Procedures Structural and procedural criteria for ecolabelling schemes Standard setting structures and procedures 1.583 8% 0.125 Stakeholder participation in standard setting 0.417 0% 0.000 Total per topic 2.000 6% 0.125

Accreditation and certification structure Accreditation and certification structures 2.000 40% 0.800 Total per topic 2.000 40% 0.800

Accreditation and certification procedures Accreditation and certification procedures 1.714 17% 0.286 Stakeholder participation in conformity assessment 0.286 0% 0.000 Total per topic 2.000 14% 0.286

Content of Standards Ecological criteria Unit of certification and stock under consideration 0.500 100% 0.500 Outcome oriented 0.100 75% 0.075 Status of the stock(s) under consideration (target stocks) 0.400 90% 0.360 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem 1.000 70% 0.700 Total per topic 2.000 82% 1.635

Fisheries management system criteria Fisheries management system criteria 2.000 81% 1.611 Total per topic 2.000 81% 1.611

Traceability criteria Traceability criteria 2.000 92% 1.833 Total per topic 2.000 92% 1.833

Total Weighted Average of all Topics 2.000 52% 1.048

Updated Validation Criteria Updated validation criteria Auditor competence 0.750 0% 0.000 Oversight 0.875 7% 0.063 Risk mitigation plan 0.375 0% 0.063 Total per topic 2.000 3% 0.125

page 20 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

Updated Ecological Criteria Updated ecological criteria Non-target species 0.667 78% 0.519 Ecosystem and habitat impacts 0.519 50% 0.259 Other ecological criteria 0.815 27% 0.222 Total per topic 2.000 50% 1.000

Total Weighted Average of all Topics Including Updated 2.000 46% 0.919

TABLE 15: FULL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL SCHEME ECOLABELLING SCHEME: MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL NEEDED PER PERFORMED PERFORMED TOPIC TO MEET CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT PER TOPIC TO TOPIC THEME TOPIC TOPIC WITHIN TOPIC CRITERIA IN % SCORE

Governance, Structure and Procedures Structural and procedural criteria for ecolabelling schemes Standard setting structures and procedures 1.583 105% 1.666 Stakeholder participation in standard setting 0.417 120% 0.500 Total per topic 2.000 108% 2.167

Accreditation and certification structure Accreditation and certification structures 2.000 100% 2.000 Total per topic 2.000 100% 2.000

Accreditation and certification procedures Accreditation and certification procedures 1.714 103% 1.765 Stakeholder participation in conformity assessment 0.286 100% 0.286 Total per topic 2.000 103% 2.051

Content of Standards Ecological criteria Unit of certification and stock under consideration 0.500 100% 0.500 Outcome oriented 0.100 100% 0.100 Status of the stock(s) under consideration (target stocks) 0.400 115% 0.460 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem 1.000 103% 1.025 Total per topic 2.000 104% 2.085

Fisheries management system criteria Fisheries management system criteria 2.000 104% 2.074 Total per topic 2.000 104% 2.074

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 21 Results

Traceability criteria Traceability criteria 2.000 100% 2.000 Total per topic 2.000 100% 2.000

Total Weighted Average of all Topics 2.000 103% 2.063

Updated Validation Criteria Updated validation criteria Auditor competence 0.750 58% 0.438 Oversight 0.875 86% 0.750 Risk mitigation plan 0.375 67% 0.250 Total per topic 2.000 72% 1.438

Updated Ecological Criteria Updated ecological criteria Non-target species 0.714 55% 0.393 Ecosystem and habitat impacts 0.500 39% 0.196 Other ecological criteria 0.786 55% 0.429 Total per topic 2.000 51% 1.018

Total Weighted Average of all Topics Including Updated 2.000 93% 1.854

page 22 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

iv. Observations In addition to the quantitative scoring against the criteria, several qualitative observations were made to assist in better understanding the differences between schemes and the unique characteristics of each scheme that results in different scores.

TABLE 16: OBSERVATIONS OF ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE SCHEME NAME: ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE Standard setting Very little information is publicly available on standard setting structures and structures procedures. and procedures Based on available documentation, it is hard to tell what document is considered the standard. The document titled “FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management,” version 1.2 appears to be the principal reference document used by the certification body in conducting assessments. It is not clear whether or not this document is actually standard. This document does not contain any information about how it was created, who created it, who owns it and how any complaints or concerns about its content can be addressed. This is the same document that is used by Icelandic Responsible Fisheries. It is not clear whether or not this document is the responsibility of one or both of these schemes, or of some other organization. In addition, the FAO guidelines themselves are referenced in some instances as if they are the standard even though they were written by an FAO

committee using its own process which does not conform to ISO, WTO, or ISEAL Alliance guidelines for standards development. Accreditation Very little information is publicly available on accreditation and certification and certification structures. structures Responsibility for meeting the standard is not clearly defined. The standard uses the language of FAO Guidelines that specifies, for example, that “States shall encourage…”. Use of this language is problematic for a fishery certification scheme as it is not clear what actions are expected of the fishery, of the fishery management system and how conformance by broader government institutions and/or regional organizations is the responsibility of the fishery under assessment. Based on available documentation the scheme appears to address the basic elements of accreditation and certification; however, there are no documented procedures or guidelines that clearly require basic elements such as accreditation and certification systems that conform to widely accepted ISO guidelines. No information could be found on dispute complaint or objection mechanisms for areas that are the responsibility of the scheme owner, including appeals and the use of impartial adjudicators.

Accreditation and Very little information is publicly available on accreditation and certification certification procedures procedures. With the exception of rules for the use of the scheme’s certification mark and the traceability procedures described in the RFM Chain of Custody Standard there are no written procedures that address most of the criteria in this section. Stakeholders may submit information concerning a fishery under assessment; however there are no procedures that outline whether or not this information must be considered during the audit. Some elements in the section were scored using information found by implication after reading certification reports that document performance against a few of the criteria.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 23 Results

Ecological criteria Very little information is publicly available about how fishery certifiers are expected to operationalize and how scores are assigned for different ecological requirements. Evidence required to show compliance with the standard is generally not defined. The broad and generalized language used in the standard technically fulfills many criteria, but it is difficult to see the requirements being usefully applied in practice.

Fisheries Very little information is publicly available about how fishery certifiers are management expected to operationalize and assign scores to different ecological criteria. system criteria Evidence required to show compliance with the standard is generally not defined. The broad and generalized language used in the standard technically fulfills many criteria, but it is difficult to see the requirements being usefully applied in practice. Scores related to stakeholder engagement and participation, accountability, transparency, and assessment and review of the management system are quite low.

Traceability criteria Traceability requirements are well defined. New validation Very little information is publicly available on the validation criteria. criteria The one certification body used by this scheme is accredited against ISO Guide 65 by an IAF member. However, there is no documentation that specifies that this is a scheme requirement for all certification bodies applying the scheme. New ecological Broad and generic language in the standard results in partial scores being criteria awarded for some updated ecological criteria, but there is no guidance on how these requirements are to be operationalized or scored by certifiers. The standard generally does not reflect the substantial progress in fisheries management guidance since 2009.

TABLE 17: OBSERVATIONS OF FRIEND OF THE SEA SCHEME NAME: FRIEND OF THE SEA

Standard setting The scheme does have a documented objections procedure, some elements structures of the consultation criteria, and separation between the standard setting and procedures organization and certification bodies that generally conform to the study criteria. Limited information is provided on governance, independence and organizational structure. In most cases it is not possible to determine from available sources whether or not, and to what degree, the criteria are addressed. There is little or no documentation demonstrating that the scheme has procedures and structures to conform with FAO guidelines as they relate to standards development, review and revision.

Accreditation and Most of the criteria under this section are found in the scheme’s structures. certification structures

Accreditation and Very little information is available to allow confirmation that the scheme has certification procedures documented procedures for accreditation and certification. While a number of the criteria appear to be fulfilled in practice, it is not possible to demonstrate that they are fully documented, and therefore implemented, for the scheme by all accreditation bodies and certification bodies. The scheme’s use of checklists for audits does ensure that all audits conducted under the scheme at least use the same core set of requirements in both fisheries and traceability audits.

page 24 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

Ecological criteria The treatment of non-target species in the standard is particularly rigorous, with a reliance on independent IUCN assessments and a requirement that bycatch and discard rates be kept below global averages (8%). The standard also protects habitat with a presumption that gear should not come in contact with seabed at all unless impacts can be proven to be negligible. While most issues are addressed, there are some notably vague requirements that remain undefined. For example, the phrases “impact is negligible” and “does not negatively impact” are used without explanation of what these mean in practice. Burden of evidence is on the fishery seeking certification, i.e. “The Organization must provide the evidence that...”. It is not clear what forms of evidence would allow certifiers to reach different conclusions. Scoring

guidance is lacking. Fisheries Management requirements are not well defined. There are no requirements management pertaining to stakeholder engagement and participation, accountability, system criteria transparency, and assessment and review of the management system. There are very limited data, monitoring and research requirements other than as pertaining to the target stock(s) under assessment.

Traceability criteria Traceability principles are defined, but specific means to operationalize the requirements are lacking. Guidance to auditors is unclear.

New validation Very little information is publicly available on whether or not the scheme criteria addresses the criteria in this section. It does have clear requirements that its procedures are compatible with ISO Guide 65. Some documentation was found that addressed auditor training and oversight of certification bodies, but this documentation address only a small number of the elements in the criteria. New ecological Some criteria are met, but the lack of scoring guidance makes it difficult to criteria tell to what extent the requirements apply. Requiring the fishery to provide evidence that impacts are negligible should include some guidance as to the requirements for that evidence.

TABLE 18: OBSERVATIONS OF ICELAND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES SCHEME NAME: ICELAND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES

Standard setting Very little information is publicly available on standard setting structures and structures procedures. and procedures Based on available documentation, it is hard to tell what document is considered the standard. The document titled “FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management,” version 1.2 appears to be the principal reference document used by the certification body in conducting assessments. It is not clear whether or not this document is actually standard. This document does not contain any information about how it was created, who created it, who owns it and how any complaints or concerns about its content can be addressed. This is the same document that is used by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. It is not clear whether or not this document is the responsibility of one or both of these schemes, or of some other organization. In addition, the FAO guidelines themselves are referenced in some instances as if they are the standard, even though they were written by an FAO committee using its own process, which does not conform to ISO, WTO, or ISEAL Alliance guidelines for standards development.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 25 Results

Accreditation and Very little information is publicly available on accreditation and certification certification structures structures. Based on available documentation the scheme appears to address the basic elements of accreditation and certification; however, there are no documented procedures or guidelines that clearly require basic elements such as accreditation and certification systems that conform to widely accepted ISO guidelines. Accreditation and No information could be found on dispute complaint or objection certification procedures mechanisms for areas that are the responsibility of the scheme owner, including appeals and the use of impartial adjudicators. Very little information is publicly available on accreditation and certification procedures. With the exception of rules for the use of the scheme’s certification mark, there are no written procedures that address most of the criteria in this section. Some elements in the section were scored using information found by implication after reading certification reports that document performance against a few of the criteria.

Ecological criteria Very little information is publicly available about how fishery certifiers are expected to operationalize and assign scores to different ecological criteria. Some requirements are not fully defined, and guidance is not available to help define generic language.

Fisheries The standard generally scores well on fisheries management system criteria, management with the exception of criteria pertaining to stakeholder engagement and system criteria participation, accountability, transparency, and assessment and review of the management system. There are requirements to take action based on scientific data, but no real requirement for the timely collection of scientific data. Weak data collection and monitoring procedures can be expected to undermine application of the precautionary approach.

Traceability criteria Traceability requirements are well defined.

New validation criteria Very little information is publicly available on the validation criteria. The one certification body used by this scheme is accredited against ISO Guide 65 by an IAF member. However, there is no documentation that specifies that this is a scheme requirement for all certification bodies applying the scheme.

New ecological The standard does not include requirements pertaining to pollution of water, criteria loss of fishing gear, harmful and perverse subsidies, or energy use. Data collection and monitoring requirements for habitats and non-target species are also lacking.

TABLE 19: OBSERVATIONS OF MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL SCHEME NAME: MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL Standard setting This scheme’s procedures and structures include elements that demonstrate structures that it fulfils all of the criteria in this section with one exception. While and procedures the scheme’s stated policy is to meet FAO guidelines, a clear procedure to ensure continued confirmation of its standards to FAO guidelines was not found. Several elements of the scheme’s structures and procedures exceed the criteria. These include requirements that stakeholders are proactively recruited to join in the standards development process and the dispute resolution process for issues related to the standards.

page 26 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Results

Accreditation and The scheme’s structures demonstrate that they meet the criteria for this certification structures section.

Accreditation and The scheme’s structures demonstrate that they meet the criteria for this certification procedures section. The scheme’s approach to the audit procedures for data-poor fisheries exceeds the criteria as stated. Ecological criteria The standard meets or exceeds the majority of ecological criteria. Two criteria related to a precautionary approach for non-target species and impacts on essential habitat are not fully met. Fisheries The standard meets or exceeds the majority of fisheries management system management criteria. Several requirements were exceeded due to the standard’s definition system criteria of requirements, definition of acceptable data (confidence ranges and sources), and operationalization of important terms.

Traceability criteria Traceability requirements are well defined. New validation criteria Some of the criteria are addressed through procedures and structures that are now in place. A number of the criteria in this section are being addressed through ongoing processes to develop new procedures and structures. These include auditor competence, oversight and risk mitigation. Some of the criteria are either not addressed or are not included in the ongoing work to develop new procedures and structures. New ecological criteria Due to the standard’s practice of defining and operationalizing key terms and requirements, and of providing useful scoring guidance, it may be somewhat more difficult to respond to advances in fisheries management guidance in a timely manner than for other schemes. The standard generally does not require sufficient proactive collection of data or impact assessments. The standard sets requirements for habitat and non-target species protection at the level of avoiding “serious or irreversible harm.” Continuous improvement is generally not required. This type of requirement–and the corresponding requirements for data collection and management measures to reach the point of preventing serious or irreversible harm and no more– does not reflect a commitment to continuous improvement and generally does not reflect progress in fisheries management guidance since 2009.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 27 Results

c. Rankings Below are two simplified visualisations of the ranking of each certification scheme assessed in this report. The first chart uses solely the criteria applied by ADP in 2009, and the second incorporates updated criteria.

FIGURE 1: OVERALL SCORING PERFORMANCE ACROSS ORIGINAL 2009 CRITERIA

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 ECOLABELS WEIGHTED AVERAGE SCORING PERFORMANCE

n Marine Stewardship Council n Friend of the Sea n ASMI n Iceland

FIGURE 2: SCORING PERFORMANCE OF SCHEMES WHEN ASSESSED WITH NEW CRITERIA

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 ECOLABEL WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVERAGE SCORES SCORING PERFORMANCE INCLUDING ON NEW CRITERIA UPDATED CRITERIA ALONE

n Marine Stewardship Council n Friend of the Sea n ASMI n Iceland

Taking into account the updated criteria does not significantly affect the relative ranking and performance of the schemes.

The radar chart below shows the comparative strengths of the certification schemes across the assessed topics. Individual topics are not weighted against each other given the differences in the number of criteria.

page 28 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update 24

Results

Comparative Analysis of Schemes

FIGURE 3: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCHEMES ACROSS ORIGINAL 2009 CRITERIA 24 Standard Setting Structures & Procedures 3.00

2.00 Accreditation & Traceability Certification Structures 1.00 Standard Setting Structures & 0.00 Procedures 3.00

2.00 Accreditation & Fisheries Traceability AccreditationCertification & Management CertificationStructures System 1.00 Procedures

0.00

Fisheries Ecological Accreditation & Management Sustainability Certification System Procedures

n Alaska Seafood Marketing InstituteEcological n Friend of the Sea Sustainability n Iceland Responsible Fisheries n Marine Stewardship Council

Figure 4 : Comparative analysis of schemes across all criteria

FIGUREFigure 4: COMPARATIVE4 : Comparative ANALYSIS analysis of OF SCHEMES schemes across ACROSS all criteria ALL CRITERIA Standard Setting Structures & Procedures Standard Setting Structures & 3.00Procedures 3.00

AccreditationAccreditation & & Updated EcologicalUpdated Criteria Ecological Criteria CertificationCertification Structures Structures 2.002.00

1.00 1.00 Accreditation & Updated Validation Criteria 0.00 Certification Procedures Accreditation & Updated Validation Criteria 0.00 Certification Procedures

Traceability Ecological Sustainability

Fisheries Management System Traceability Ecological Sustainability n Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute n Friend of the Sea n Icelandd. Comparisons Responsible Fisheries with Fisheries 2009 Management n Marine System Stewardship Council The four schemes were also evaluated in the 2009 ADP report. The 2009 and 2012 scores for each of the schemes are presented here, with improved scores highlighted in green and declining scores highlighted in red. d. Comparisons with 2009 THEME 1 THEME 2 d. Comparisons TheEcolabelling four schemes Scheme with wereGovernance, also 2009 evaluated Structures in the and Procedures 2009 ADP report.Content The 2009 of Ecolabel and 2012 Standards scores The four for each schemes were of thealso schemes evaluated are presented in here, the with improved 2009 ADP report. The scores highlighted 2009 and in green 2012 and scores for each of the schemes declining are scores presented highlighted in here, red. with improved scores highlighted Page 24 | in green and declining scores highlighted in red.

THEME 1 THEME 2 Ecolabelling Scheme Governance, Structures and Procedures Content of Ecolabel Standards

Page 24 |

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 29 Results

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF 2009 AND 2012 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

THEME 1 THEME 2 Governance, Structures Content of and Procedures Ecolabel Standards Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5 Topic 6 Standard setting Accreditation Accreditation structures and and Fisheries and certification certification Ecological management Ecolabelling Scheme procedures structures procedures sustainability system Traceability Alaska Seafood Not Marketing Institute 2009 1.13 assessed 0.67 0.95 1.33 1.33 Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 2012 0.04 0.80 0.62 1.6 1.57 1.83 Friend of the Sea 2009 0.75 2.00 1.43 1.00 0.96 1.83 Friend of the Sea 2012 0.46 1.60 0.81 1.74 1.06 1.17 Iceland Responsible Not Not Not Fisheries 2009 assessed assessed assessed 0.80 0.70 0.83 Iceland Responsible Fisheries 2012 0.125 0.80 0.28 1.625 1.61 1.83 Marine Stewardship Council 2009 1.79 2.00 2.00 1.95 1.89 2.00 Marine Stewardship Council 2012 2.17 2.00 2.05 2.08 2.07 2.00

The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and Iceland Responsible Fisheries schemes were only partially scored in 2009 and considered “Sustainability programmes with on-pack labels” rather than seafood ecolabels. These two schemes have changed significantly over the past years, as reflected by the updated scores.

This updated assessment shows that the performance of the Friend of Sea ecolabelling scheme has declined in Topics 1, 2 and 3 related to governance, structures and procedures, and declined with respect to traceability issues. In terms of how the content of the ecolabel standard deals with ecological sustainability and fisheries management systems, the Friend of the Sea scheme has improved.

The caveat mentioned in “Scoring summaries” (section 5.f.i) above should be kept in mind. It is possible for a scheme to partially meet many of the criteria in “Content of the ecolabel standard” by using vague or generic language that does not provide a meaningful way to score or measure compliance. Improvement in these criteria topics must be complemented by improvement in the governance, structure and procedures of an ecolabel in order to have confidence in the scheme’s impact on the water.

The Marine Stewardship Council scheme has improved across all criteria except for “Accreditation and certification structures” and “Traceability,” where it was assessed in 2009 as fully compliant. The gradual improvement in scores demonstrates a commitment to improving across all topics in which the scheme was not fully compliant.

Unfortunately, the original scoring of the two schemes on individual criteria was not available from ADP for this report. It is not known whether the changes in scores are a result of the evolution of the schemes; changes in the information that is publically available; the evolution of the evolution of best practices for certification bodies and fisheries management standards that have guided the scoring of these schemes; or some combination of these factors.

page 30 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the quantitative evaluation conducted in the study, the Marine Stewardship Council is found to be compliant with the WWF criteria. Friend of the Sea, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and Iceland Responsible Fisheries are found to be semi-compliant. Using the same criteria as the 2009 ADP report, Friend of the Sea scored slightly higher than Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, and Icelandic Responsible Fisheries scored lowest. With the updated criteria, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute scored higher than Friend of the Sea and Icelandic Responsible Fisheries remained the lowest scoring scheme, averaged across all themes.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 31 7. SUMMARY In the design of this study, the process for the selection of the standards to be evaluated was driven by the number of changes and by the extent of those changes that have been implemented in each of the schemes. Three of the four schemes evaluated appear to have chosen to focus their resources in the development of the certification requirements that are to be applied in the field when conducting audits of applicant fisheries, and not in developing the core documentation and structures that govern the standards development process itself, certification, and accreditation.

As a result, it is much easier to determine and evaluate the certification requirements as they are applied to the fisheries themselves, than it is to determine and evaluate how well those certification requirements are applied, the consistency with which they are applied, the openness of the systems to the concerns, questions and interests of stakeholders, and ultimately, the credibility of any claim that is based on the certification itself.

Of note in this study is the flexibility and adaptability shown by each of the schemes evaluated to the changes in expectations for the credibility of the certification system itself, and new understandings about how wild fisheries are to be managed. In the case of the four schemes evaluated, it appears that the pace of these changes makes it difficult for the schemes to translate them into clear and auditable certification requirements, at the same pace, they are appearing in the documents of recognized international authorities.

The authors of the study fully recognize that the absence of publicly available documentation does not necessarily mean that the scheme is, or is not fully in conformance with the criteria laid out in Annex 1.

It is crucial to note, however, that credibility for an ecolabelling scheme means that the users including a full range of stakeholders, and that the general public should have access to sufficient information about the scheme, including how it operates and its independence, as well as to performance requirements to determine whether or not the ecolabel is useful to them.

Issues identified in the assessment are presented according to the topics below:

a. Standard setting structures and procedures • Most of the schemes evaluated had little or no documentation to explain standard setting structures and procedures. • Openness to stakeholder input, complaints and objections is lacking in most of the schemes. • The use of intergovernmental agencies’ guidelines as standards is of particular concern because these guidelines are written for governments and the requirements that address governmental action cannot be made requirements on fisheries seeking certification.

b. Accreditation and certification structures • Because there is a lack of documentation, it is difficult to understand the relationships between scheme owners, accreditation bodies and certification bodies. • In the case of the schemes that use IAF-member accreditation bodies, it is not possible to determine whether or not accreditation is consistent when more than one accreditation body is used. • In most of the schemes, the relationships between complaints and objection procedures of the scheme itself, accreditation bodies and certification bodies is hard to understand. This includes clarity about who has access to these mechanisms, how to use them and how appeals from one body to another are managed.

page 32 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Summary

c. Accreditation and certification procedures • Most of the certification schemes have either poorly documented certification procedures, or their procedures and methodologies are not publicly available. • There is an effort by all of the schemes to make use of reputable science and professional judgment in the assessments. d. Ecological criteria • While all of the certification schemes require an evaluation of the sustainability of the target species, there is less consistency in the evaluation of fishing methods, including the impact of gear being used. • Impacts on non-target species and ecosystems and habitats are imperfectly limited and monitored by most schemes. e. Fisheries management system criteria • Most of the assessed certification schemes do not require the fisheries management systems to operate transparently and accountably with opportunities for stakeholder involvement. • Only one certification scheme adequately defines the goals and objectives of an effective legal and administrative framework. f. Traceability criteria • All of the schemes employ traceability systems that can reasonably be expected to provide confidence through a chain of custody. • None of the schemes share a common traceability system. g. New validation criteria • Even though the criteria in this section are very new and often in draft, there is evidence that some of the schemes are seeking new ways to provide validation of the effectiveness and reliability of their schemes. h. New ecological criteria • All of the schemes have undertaken some steps to incorporate the issues identified in these criteria. In only a few cases have new procedures and structures been fully implemented.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 33 8. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY As wild fisheries certification schemes continue to develop, the following steps should be considered: • Complete documentation that is publicly available and covers the roles of the ecolabelling scheme, the certification body and the accreditation body, is strongly recommended. • Each scheme should document procedures and demonstrate full compliance with established guidelines from ISO, WTO and ISEAL. This should include public notifications and opportunities for consultation that are easily accessible to all stakeholders. • The use of a common traceability system across multiple certification schemes should be considered as a way to reduce cost and improve accessibility. • Fisheries and other users of the certification and ecolabelling schemes are encouraged to consider the level of transparency from the schemes on all of the areas identified by the criteria in this study. • None of the schemes evaluated include explicit requirements or procedures that address the management of fisheries in the context of climate change.

page 34 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update ANNEX 1 Self-Assessment Tool a. Guide to completing the 2012 wild fisheries certification scheme self- assessment tool Prepared by JJS Consulting 15 June 2012

Contents of this Guide Contact information Purpose of this guide Background to this project Background to the new project Selection of new criteria Validation criteria Ecological criteria How to fill in the self-assessment tool Contact information If you have any questions about this project or would like more information about the self-assessment tool, please feel free to contact either Jordan Nikoloyuk at [email protected] or James Sullivan at [email protected]

Purpose of this guide This guide has been developed to provide information for individuals in filling out the self-assessment tool.

Background to this project In 2009, WWF International retained Accenture to conduct the study “Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels”. A full copy of their report can be downloaded from WWF at: assets.panda.org/downloads/full_report_wwf_ecolabel_study_lowres.pdf

WWF International has retained our services to produce a supplementary report to the 2009 study by Accenture. Our supplementary report will focus on four schemes identified by WWF that have either undergone significant changes, or are new since the 2009 report was completed. The schemes that we will focus on are Friend of the Sea, the Marine Stewardship Council, and Global Trust’s two “FAO Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Programs” for Alaska and Iceland.

This study will apply the full evaluation criteria that were used in the 2009 study. In addition, two new sets of criteria have been developed. These new criteria are designed to address changes in international expectations about fisheries management and certification schemes.

One set of new criteria will incorporate relevant elements form FAO guidelines that reflect international direction established through UN resolutions on fisheries management. These documents include the “FAO Guidelines on Deep-Sea Fisheries Management” and the “FAO Guidelines on ByCatch Management and Reduction of Discards”.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 35 Annex 1

The second set of new criteria will incorporate relevant elements from ISEAL and ISO documents that reflect a growing focus on validation of certification results. The sources include Annex A of the recently approved ISO 17065, and the draft Assurance Code and Credibility Code from the ISEAL Alliance.

The goal of this supplementary report is to provide an independent assessment of these four schemes as of 2012 and to identify whether or not, and to what degree, each scheme is, or has taken steps to update their systems and respond to emerging trends reflected in the work of recognized international organizations.

WWF has requested that we prepare a report of this study that can, just as with the 2009 study, be published and made available to the public.

Background to the new criteria Selection of new criteria The source material for the new criteria was selected based on the following: • Source material is proposed or adopted by recognized international organizations that seek to build consensus. Where appropriate we considered material from peer reviewed publications that reflects an emerging expert consensus. • Elements identified from WWF’s own work. • The new material was not already covered by the Accenture 2009 criteria.

Validation criteria The new set of validation criteria includes 14 additional criteria under the following categories: • Auditor competence (6) • Oversight (6) • Risk mitigation plan (2)

The sources for the validation criteria are: • ISO 17065 Annex A – Principles for product certification bodies and their certification activities • ISEAL Alliance – Draft credibility code • ISEAL Alliance – Draft verification code

These documents reflect a growing consensus on a more comprehensive understanding of how certification is to be evaluated. It should be noted that all of these documents are either long established drafts (in the case of ISEAL) or in the case of ISO, recently adopted and so not fully implemented. The reference source in ISO 17065 is Annex A is informative and therefore not a required section of this new guide, that being said it is a comprehensive list of the principles that should guide certification that conforms to ISO 1065.

Ecological criteria In addition to the ecological criteria presented in the 2009 Accenture report, 28 additional criteria under the following categories are included: • Unit of certification (1) • Stock status (1) • Non-target species (10) • Ecosystem/habitats (7) • Forage fisheries (3)

page 36 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

• Pollution of water (2) • Loss of fishing gear (1) • Subsidies (2) • Use of energy and CO2 emissions (1)

The addition of these criteria is warranted by substantial progress in fisheries management guidance since 2009. The additional criteria are based on new technical frameworks, peer reviewed literature or internationally agreed conventions. As certification of marine fisheries progresses and evolves, it must also keep pace with changes in fisheries management regimes, particularly as the ecosystem approach and precautionary approach are expressed in tangible, on the water changes in how fisheries can mitigate impacts on the marine ecosystem. Since the 2009 Accenture Report reviewing fisheries certification and ranking schemes, there has been progress in both international and national fisheries management, including new agreements at the level of the United Nations General Assembly and the strengthening of national policy frameworks.

We have focused on the following guidelines, papers and conventions to support the legitimacy of the additional criteria: • The 2010 FAO Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards represent a progression in guidance and best practices for mitigating the incidental capture of non-target species in a variety of fishing gear types. • The 2008 FAO Guidelines for the Management Deep Sea Fisheries are the result of technical consultations relating to the sustainable fisheries resolutions negotiated at the United Nations General Assembly in 2004 and 2006, where significant wording was adopted pertaining to the management of bottom fishing activities, particularly on the high seas. The identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems and their subsequent protection, as well as the practice of conducting impact assessment of fisheries, have become an integral part of managing bottom fisheries on the high seas. State measures are required by UNFSA to be compatible with measures on the high seas, and many countries are adopting and implementing policies to better regulate the impacts of fishing activities on the sea floor. • Concern about trophic cascades and the impacts of removing forage species from the marine environment, often for use in fishmeal, resulted in a scientific task force to explore recommendations for fisheries management changes regarding forage species. These recommendations are outlined in the Lenfest Report entitled Little Fish, Big Impact. It is expected that these recommendations will begin to influence fisheries management policy decisions regarding forage species. • Additional criteria and baselines provided by WWF on subsidies. • The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Annex IV) is an existing international agreement on ship source pollution, including practices to prevent waste at sea and loss of fishing gear that should be standard practice for most fishing vessels. • Public subsidies to ecologically damaging fishing practices are becoming increasingly controversial. Criteria are based on the 2009 WWF subsidies policy.

How to fill in the self-assessment tool The self-assessment tool is an excel spreadsheet containing four separate workbooks. • Workbook 1 – “Accenture criteria - Theme 1” covers the Accenture criteria pertaining to ‘Governance, structure and procedures’.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 37 Annex 1

• Workbook 2 – “Accenture criteria - Theme 2” covers the Accenture criteria pertaining to ‘Content of standards’. • Workbook 3 – “NEW - Validation criteria” covers newly developed validation criteria. • Workbook 4 – “NEW - Ecological criteria” covers newly developed ecological criteria.

In each of these workbooks, criteria and the relevant sources of criteria are listed, sorted by issue areas. The scheme owner is asked to complete green-coloured columns D – I in each of the four worksheets.

• Reference in scheme documents: Please indicate which section(s) of relevant scheme document(s) address this criterion by providing the name of the document and paragraph/section numbers. Please write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the following columns to indicate whether the document referenced is: - Under development; - In Draft or Undergoing trial; or - Requirement is in force. • Text of scheme document: Please provide the text of the scheme document(s) and section(s) that are relevant to the criterion.

• Notes by scheme owner: Please provide any relevant additional information, such as the expected implementation date of criteria under development, guidance for interpretation of the reference, or other factors that should be taken into account when assessing scoring.

While we will be undertaking a desk study of scheme documents to supplement the self-assessment tool, we are aware that not all scheme documents will be available and that the best scheme experts are the scheme owners themselves. We ask that the self- assessment tool be filled in completely. Since it will not be possible to assign scoring points for information that cannot be found, full completion of the self-assessment tool spreadsheet will help us ensure that our final report accurately reflects the steps that a scheme has taken steps to respond to emerging trends reflected in the work of recognized international organizations.

page 38 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1 b. THEME 1: Governance, structure & procedures of ecolabelling scheme

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Topic 1: Standard setting structures and procedures Transparency The organisational structure If not published on principle and financial arrangements the internet, then of an ecolabelling scheme are available through transparent. annual reports or on request. Governance The governing body (e.g., Board) (WWF principles of an ecolabelling scheme of participation, has members that include transparency and independent experts, interested accountability) parties and other stakeholders. Independence The standard setting body (FAO Guidelines: does not perform accreditation 66, 69) functions nor receive payment from certification bodies for accreditation services. The standards setting body (FAO Guidelines: does not perform certification 107) of fisheries or supply chains nor receive payment from certification clients for certification services. Organisational The organisational structure (Based on FAO structure/ of a standard setting body or Guidelines: 45) institutional arrangement includes a technical arrangements committee of independent experts whose mandates are established. The organisational structure (Based on FAO of a standard setting body Guidelines: 45) or arrangement includes a consultation forum for interested parties whose mandates are established. Transparent Written (documented) rules of (FAO Guidelines: standard setting procedure for development, 47, 49, 56, ISEAL) procedures review and approval of standards exist, including written procedures to guide decision- making. Terms of Upon commencement of any new (Iseal Code: 5.2) reference for standard development activity, standard setting terms of reference are prepared for the proposed new standard.

Terms of reference justify the (Iseal Code: 5.2) need for the standard and establish clear objectives for the standard.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 39 Annex 1

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Dispute or Procedural rules for standard (FAO Guidelines: complaints setting activities contain a 47,ISEAL Code: resolution for mechanism for the impartial 5.1) standard setting resolution of substantive activity or procedural disputes or complaints about the handling of standard setting matters. Notification of When actively engaged in (FAO Guidelines: standard setting standard setting activity 48,50, 51) activity (development or review), a work programme is published nationally, regionally and internationally and/ or on the internet every six months containing: - name of organisation; - address; - list of standards under preparation; - list of standards under review or revision; - list of standards adopted in preceding six months. Availability of Standard setting procedures, (FAO Guidelines procedures, draft and final standards, notices 49,51, 52) standards and about standard setting work notices programmes are available and accessible to interested parties via the internet and other forms of distribution upon request. Within the means of the standard (FAO Guidelines setting body, translations of 53) standard setting procedures into English, French or Spanish can be provided upon request. Contact point A contact point for standard (FAO Guidelines: setting matters is identified. 59) Review & Standards are reviewed at (FAO Guidelines: revision of regular published intervals and, 60) standards if appropriate, revised after such reviews. Standard setting bodies enable (FAO Guidelines: interested parties to submit 61) proposals for revision of standards which are considered through a transparent process. Validation of A procedure exists to validate (FAO Guidelines: standards standards with respect to the 63) FAO’s minimum requirements for sustainable fisheries to ensure the standard does not contain criteria of no relevance to sustainable fisheries or could cause unnecessary barriers to trade, or mislead the consumer. Review of Procedures for setting standards (FAO Guidelines: procedures are reviewed periodically in the 62) light of new information and experience in standard setting. Complying with Certified fisheries are given at (FAO Guidelines: new standards least three years to comply with 60) revised standards.

page 40 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Participation in Standard setting bodies ensure (FAO Guidelines: standard setting balanced participation in 54) activities standard setting by independent experts and interested parties. Standard setting bodies facilitate (FAO Guidelines: access and participation of 46) interested parties especially those of developing countries and countries in transition. Interested parties can participate (FAO Guidelines: in standard setting activities 55) through an appropriate consultation forum or alternative appropriate mechanisms. Consultation Before adopting a new or revised (FAO Guidelines: period on new standard, standard setting 57) or revised bodies allow at least 60 days standards for interested parties to submit comments on a draft standard. Transparent Standard setting bodies can (FAO Guidelines: decision-making demonstrate how comments 58) from interested parties have been considered.

Topic 2: Accreditation and certification structures Accreditation Accreditation is undertaken by an (FAO Guidelines: independent, impartial, competent 66, 69) and transparent accreditation body which does not perform standard setting for fisheries sustainability or traceability, nor certification of fisheries against such standards. Accreditation bodies can (ISO/IEC Guide objectively demonstrate 17011 ISEAL conformity to the requirements Alliance) set out in ISO/IECGuide 17011, as appropriate. Certification Certification is undertaken (FAO Guidelines: by independent, impartial, 108) competent and transparent certification body which does not perform standard setting for fisheries sustainability or traceability, nor accreditation of other certification bodies to use such standards. Certification bodies are (FAO Guidelines: recognised and accredited by an 107) independent, impartial, competent and transparent accreditation body to conduct conformity assessments using the specific standards of the ecolabelling scheme being audited.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 41 Annex 1

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER  Dispute, Adjudication of disputes, (FAO Guidelines: complaint complaints or objections to 83, 147) or objection certification body decisions about mechanisms fisheries meeting sustainability or traceability requirements that have not been resolved by certification bodies and are forwarded to the accreditation body or ecolabelling scheme, is conducted by an independent and impartial person(s) or committee. Topic 3: Accreditation and certification procedures Accreditation Accreditation requirements and (FAO Guidelines: procedures are documented 74) and provided to applicant and accredited entities who aim to use the ecolabelling scheme’s standards to conduct conformity assessments. Certification Certification procedures are (FAO Guidelines: documented by the ecolabelling 27, 117) scheme or accreditation body and provided to those applicant and accredited certification bodies that are competent to use the ecolabelling scheme’s standards for conformity assessment. Measurable performance (FAO Guidelines: requirements (or indicators) against 22 , 27) the standards are documented and provided to applicant and accredited certification bodies by the ecolabelling scheme or accreditation body.

Methodologies for applying (FAO Guidelines: sustainability and traceability 27, 117) requirements are documented and provided to applicant and accredited certification bodies.

Guidance material is documented (FAO Guidelines: and provided to applicant and 117) accredited certification bodies to aid the application and interpretation of the standards.

Certification bodies are required (FAO Guidelines: to use the best scientific 2, 28, 29, 30, 31) evidence available, also taking into account traditional, fisher and community knowledge of the resources provided that its validity can be objectively verified.

The certification procedures (WWF common include minimum requirements for sense principle) technical, scientific and auditing skills or experience for auditors, certifiers or others involved in auditing compliance with the ecolabelling scheme standard.

page 42 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Certification The certification procedures (WWF common continued require the use of expert sense principle) judgment to determine whether a fisheries sustainability

performance requirement has

been met by the fishery seeking

certification.

The certification procedures Expert consultation enable the use of a robust, in March 2008 science-based, objectively recommended verifiable risk assessment to COFI Sub-

approach to assess the Committee on

performance requirements Trade in June 2008,

or indicators of the ecolabel which agreed

standard in data-poor that COFI should

circumstances. develop technical

guidelines for using

risk assessment

approaches

for data-poor

fisheries, under

the ecolabelling guidelines (FAO, 2008) Transparency Certification bodies or (FAO Guidelines: ecolabelling schemes publish 27) written records of the outcome of the science-based judgments made by certification assessment teams, including the rationale behind such judgments against each performance requirement and how the views of interested parties have been considered. Dispute, Procedures for handling (FAO Guidelines: complaint complaints are published by 82, 151) or objection certification bodies, ecolabelling mechanisms schemes and accreditation bodies. Certification bodies, ecolabelling FAO Guidelines: schemes or accreditation bodies 84, 150) keep written records of disputes, complaints and objections concerning certification and/ or accreditation, noting that confidentiality of information shall be safeguarded during the process. Auditing and Certification procedures require (FAO Guidelines: inspection certification bodies to monitor 128) certified fisheries and conduct regular audits, including ad hoc audits if necessary to ensure that the fishery continues to meet the standard and to monitor progress against any non-conformances, conditions or corrective actions that may have been specified by the certification body.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 43 Annex 1

THEME 1 Governance, Structure and Procedures of Ecolabelling Scheme REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Auditing and Certification procedures require (FAO Guidelines: inspection certification bodies to require 129) continued fisheries certification clients to notify them promptly of any changes to the management of the fishery, or other changes that may affect continued conformity to ecolabelling standards.

Certification procedures give (FAO Guidelines: certification bodies the ability to 130) conduct reassessments of the fishery in the event of changes or analysis of complaints that may affect the fishery’s ability to conform to ecolabelling standards. Use of label, The certification body, accreditation (FAO Guidelines: logo or body or owner of the ecolabelling 141) certification scheme (standard setter) has claim documented procedures describing the requirements, restrictions or limitations on the use of any label, logo or certification claim relating to the ecolabelling scheme’s standards. Period of Standards allow fisheries (FAO Guidelines: certification certification to be valid for up to 132) five years. Training Relevant training is provided (ISO 19011) to applicant and accredited certification bodies by standard setting bodies on the interpretation and implementation of the ecolabelling scheme’s standards and certification procedures, methodologies and guidance. Certification - Certification procedures for fisheries (FAO Guidelines: transparency sustainability require certification 2.4, 3) bodies to engage with, and consult interested parties about the fishery in question and its likelihood of meeting the specified performance requirements of the standard. Certification procedures for (FAO Guidelines: fisheries sustainability require 2.4, 3, 27) certification bodies to consider the views of any interested parties, including States, RFMOs and the FAO. Dispute, Certification procedures allow (FAO Guidelines: complaint interested parties to dispute, 147) or objection complain or object to the mechanism findings of an independent certification body in relation to sustainability or traceability standards.

page 44 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1 c. THEME 2: Contents of standards: ecological, fisheries management system traceability criteria THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Unit of The ecolabelling standard defines (FAO Guidelines: certification “unit of certification” in way 25, as modified by that is consistent with the FAO FAO, 2008)

definition. The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines:

requires certification clients and 25, as modified by

certification bodies to declare FAO, 2008)

transparently which species,

stocks, methods, fleet(s) and/

or geographical boundaries or

other relevant distinguishing features are included in the unit of certification. Stock under The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines: consideration requires that certification clients 25, as modified by and certification bodies declare FAO, 2008) transparently which stock or stocks are under consideration.

The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: that all fishing and other mortality 25, as modified by of fish from any nominated stocks FAO, 2008) under consideration over their entire area of distribution are considered under a sustainability assessment for ecolabelling certification.

The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: that only fish or fishery products 25, as modified by that come from nominated stocks FAO, 2008) under consideration, and that pass the relevant standard, may be entitled to carry the ecolabel, logo or make any public claim to meet the ecolabel standard for a sustainable fishery. Sustainability The ecolabelling standard is (WWF EBM outcome outcome oriented – i.e., the Component 7) (biological standard includes criteria and/ or ecological or performance indicators where status) the use of which in conformity assessment will objectively demonstrate that the fishery’s stock status and the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem are sustainable according to appropriate measures and/or proxies. Ecological role The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: the ecological role of the stock 31.2) under consideration to be taken into account in determining stock status and/or limit and target reference points (or proxies), including key prey species and the potential impacts of its removal on dependent predators.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 45 Annex 1

THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Stock status The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: the stock under consideration to 30.1, 30.3) be above its limit reference point (or appropriate proxy) if a biomass reference point, or below its limit reference point (or appropriate proxy) if a fishing mortality reference point. Stock rebuilding The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO Guidelines: rebuilding of stocks that are 30.2) above fishing mortality (or proxy) reference points or below biomass (or proxy) limit reference points, but requires action to be taken to rectify the situation and evidence of stock rebuilding. Evidence The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO Guidelines: generic evidence based on similar 30.4) fisheries in the absence of specific stock information. However, the standard also requires more specific evidence the greater risk to stocks particularly in intensive fisheries. Key elements The ecolabelling standard defines (WWF EBM of ecosystems the important elements of Components) ecosystems that must be audited for certification. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: species knowledge of the potential impacts 31.1) of the fishery on: stocks other than stocks under consideration including discards, retained non- target, other by-catch species and, unobserved mortality of species.

The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines:

that non-target catches should 31.1)

not threaten non-target stocks with serious risk of extinction.

The ecolabelling standard (WWF EBM

requires knowledge of the Components 4, 7

potential impacts of the fishery and 8)

on Protected, Endangered and Threatened (PET) species.

The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF EBM

that the fishing impacts on Components 4, 7

protected species are within safe and 8)

biological limits as measured

by relevant proxy indicators, or

if endangered or threatened,

that fishing impacts are not compromising the ability of the species’ population to rebuild. Habitats The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: knowledge of essential and 31.3) (WWF EBM highly vulnerable habitats and the Components 4,7 potential impacts of the fishery. & 8)

page 46 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Habitats The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: continued the assessment of fishery impacts 31.3) on habitat to consider the full spatial range of relevant habitats, not just the part of the spatial range that is potentially affected by fishing. Impacts on essential habitats or (FAO Guidelines: habitats that are highly vulnerable 31.3) (WWF EBM to damage, are to be avoided, Components 4,7 minimised or mitigated. &8) Key elements of The ecolabelling standard requires The ecolabelling wider ecosystem knowledge of the potential standard requires structure and impacts of the fishery on key knowledge of the function elements of ecosystem structure potential impacts and function. of the fishery on key elements of ecosystem structure and function. Evidence The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO Guidelines: generic evidence based on similar 31.4) fisheries in the absence of specific information on impacts of fishing for the unit of certification. However, the standard also requires more specific evidence the greater risk to stocks particularly in intensive fisheries. Topic 5: Fisheries management system criteria Good The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: management the fishery to be conducted under 28) practice a management system that operates in compliance with the requirements of relevant local, national and international law and regulations, including the requirements of any RFMO that manages the fisheries on the stock under consideration. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO that fishery management focuses Guidelines:29.4) on long-term sustainable use and conservation, not short-term considerations. Appropriate The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO management fishery management to be Guidelines:29) appropriate for the scale, type or context of the fishery. Legal The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO framework that an effective legal and Guidelines:29.5) administrative framework, at the appropriate level, is established for the fishery.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 47 Annex 1

THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Legal The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: framework that compliance with fishery 6,29.5) continued management rules, measures, etc. is ensured through effective mechanisms for monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement. The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF Principles the existence of appropriate and of fairness and transparent dispute resolution justice) mechanisms. Objectives The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: objectives for managing the stock 28.2, 31) under consideration and the ecosystem effects of fishing. Adequate data The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: and information adequate data and/or information 29.1) collected on target stocks (stocks under consideration) to be collected and maintained to enable stock status and trends to be evaluated and the effectiveness of management measured. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: adequate data and/or information 29.3) to be used to identify risks and adverse effects of the fishery on key elements of ecosystems and the effectiveness of management measured. Traditional, The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO Guidelines: fisher or traditional, fisher or community 29.1, 29.2, 29.3) community knowledge to be considered when knowledge evaluating fisheries, provided its validity can be objectively verified. Stock The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines: assessment requires that appropriate stock 29.1, 29.2, 32) assessments are conducted to determine stock status and trends for the stock under consideration. Timely and The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: best available that the best science available be 29.2, 29.3, 29.4) science used in the fisheries management process.

The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines:

that timely scientific advice on 29.3)

the likelihood and magnitude of fishery impacts be provided in the fishery management process. Reference The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: points (or the fishery to have appropriate 29.2, 29.2bis 29.6) proxies) target reference points (or proxies) that are consistent with BMSY.

The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines:

the fishery to have appropriate 29.2, 29.2bis 29.6)

limit reference points or directions

(or proxies) that are consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing.

page 48 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Management The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: measures designated fisheries management 29.4, 31.2) authorities or entities to adopt and implement appropriate measures for sustainable use and conservation of the stock under consideration, and avoid severe adverse impacts on dependent predators if the species is a key prey species. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: designated fisheries management 31.3) authorities or entities to adopt and implement measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate, as appropriate, adverse impacts on key elements of the fishery’s ecosystem. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines: that management approaches are 28.1) documented, take into account uncertainty and imprecision and have a reasonable expectation that management will succeed. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO that a precautionary approach Guidelines:29.6) be used and that the absence of scientific information not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation or management measures. The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO the management system to Guidelines:29.6) use suitable methods of risk assessment to take into account relevant uncertainties. The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO the management system to adopt Guidelines:29.6) remedial actions if reference points are approached or exceeded. The ecolabelling standard allows (FAO recovery, restoration or rebuilding of Guidelines:30) stocks or key ecosystem elements within reasonable timeframes. Research The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF EBM research to be conducted that Component 10) is aimed at addressing the ecosystem, stock and fishery’s management information needs. Subsidies The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF subsidies that there are no harmful or perverse policy position, subsidies used in the fishery that 2009) could result in unsustainable fish stocks or unhealthy, dysfunctional ecosystems. Performance The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF EBM assessment and that the performance of the fishery Components 9 review processes and its management approach are & 11) reviewed and assessed against management objectives.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 49 Annex 1 d. New validation criteria THEME 2 Contents of Standards: Ecological, Fisheries Management System Traceability Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Stakeholder The ecolabelling standard (WWF EBM engagement requires fisheries managers or Components 1-12) and decisionmakers to engage with, participation or enable the participation of stakeholders with an interest in, or who are affected by fisheries management decisions, in the decision-making process. Accountability The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF common & transparency fisheries management decision sense principle) makers to be accountable and transparent to interested parties about the fisheries management decisions they make.

Topic 6: Traceability criteria Chain If an ecolabel, logo or (FAO Guidelines: of custody sustainability claim is to be made 135) about fish or fishery products at any time, standards require chain of custody certification at each point of transfer in the supply chain, including the first point of landing, transhipment at sea or other vessel to vessel transfer. Segregation Standards require that all certified (FAO Guidelines: and separation fish or fishery products are clearly 135) identified and kept separate (either spatially or temporally) from all non-certified fish or fishery products at each point of transfer along the supply chain. Records Standards require that records (FAO Guidelines: relating to incoming and outgoing 136) shipments, receipts and invoices are kept by the recipients of certified fish or fishery products. Audits & Standards require that (FAO Guidelines: inspections certification bodies have 137) documented audit and inspection procedures, including the frequency of audits and the use of ad hoc inspection. Standards require that (FAO Guidelines: certification bodies produce 138, 139, 140) written audit reports which include records of any breaches of standards and relevant corrective actions required. Certification Standards allow chain of custody (FAO Guidelines: period certification to be valid for up to 132) three years.

page 50 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

New Validation Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Auditor The ecolabelling scheme has (ISO 17065 A.3) competence documented and defined criteria for the competence of auditors and other personnel. Auditor Auditors and audit team members (ISEAL Assurance competence receive initial and ongoing training Code 0.2; 6.4.2; according to the requirements ISO 17065 A.3) of their respective positions. Auditors are trained in the following: 1) Interpreting the standard(s) in different contexts by understanding the intent of each criterion; 2) Conducting qualitative interviews; 3) Performing sampling tasks; 4) Guidelines and limits on providing information and advice during an audit. Auditor The ecolabelling scheme has a (ISEAL Assurance competence documented protocol for the Code 0.2; 6.4.6; ongoing evaluation of auditors ISO 17065 A.3) and other assurance personnel. The protocol shall include at least: 1) The entity responsible for the evaluations; 2) Types of evaluation to be employed; 3) How each evaluation is applied: rules, administration, scoring and pass rates, etc.; 4) Records of evaluation; and 5) Frequency of evaluations. Auditor New auditors are required to (ISEAL Assurance competence complete a probationary period Code 0.2; 6.4.4; during which they are supervised ISO 17065 A.3) by qualified auditors and are provided with mentoring and other on-the-job learning opportunities. Auditor Evaluations of auditor competence (ISEAL Assurance competence include witness audits. Code 0.2; 6.4.6; ISO 17065 A.3) Auditor The ecolabelling scheme has (ISEAL Assurance competence defined and documented the Code 0.2; 6.4.4; probationary and mentoring ISO 17065 A.3) requirements for auditors. Oversight The ecolabelling scheme requires (ISEAL Assurance that certification bodies substantially Code 0.2; 5.1.2) fulfill the requirements ofISO 17065 (Guide 65 until implementation period is complete) or ISO 17021 and the relevant IAF guidance. Oversight The ecolabelling scheme has (ISEAL Assurance defined and documented the Code 0.2; 6.7.3) procedures for conducting oversight of certification bodies. Oversight Oversight includes a review, (ISEAL Assurance at regular intervals, of: 1) Code 0.2; 6.7.3) the management system of certification bodies; 2) the competence of certification body personnel (including a selection of witness audits); and 3) the results of the assurance activity.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 51 Annex 1 e. New ecological criteria New Validation Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Oversight The ecolabelling scheme regularly (ISEAL Assurance reviews audits conducted by Code 0.2; 6.7.3) certification bodies that includes: 1) On-site visit to a client without the auditor present and evaluating the last inspection report to see if the inspection report of the certification body correlates with what is seen at the time; and 2) Client interview to get their impression of their certification body. Oversight The ecolabelling scheme (ISEAL Assurance conducts regular in-depth Code 0.2; 6.7.3) monitoring of a specific issue across all certification bodies in the scheme, to compare, and therefore determine the level of competence and consistency of assurance across the scheme. Oversight The ecolabelling scheme conducts (ISEAL Assurance regular reviews of information Code 0.2; 6.7.3) obtainable from the databases of certification bodies. Oversight The ecolabelling scheme regularly (ISEAL Assurance reviews the effort (usually Code 0.2; 6.7.3) measured as time) spent on audits by certification bodies.

Risk mitigation The ecolabelling scheme has a (ISEAL Assurance plan documented plan for addressing Code 0.2; 6.1.1) the risks of non-conformance within their system. The plan includes: 1) A list of the most significant risks in their system that are likely to lead to instances of non¬conformance; and 2) A description of the strategies being employed by the ecolabelling scheme-owner to address each of these risks. Risk mitigation The ecolabelling scheme makes (ISEAL Assurance plan its risk mitigation plan publicly Code 0.2; 6.1.1) available, at least through publication on its website. Risk mitigation The ecolabelling scheme reviews (ISEAL Assurance plan and if appropriate revises the risk Code 0.2; 6.1.2) mitigation plan annually.

page 52 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

New Ecological Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Unit of The ecolabelling standard does (FAO Ecolabelling certification not allow division of the unit of Guidelines 25) certification by target species in cases where fisheries use non-selective gear types or target more than one species with the same gear and spatial-temporal fishing activity.

Stock status The ecolabelling standard rewards

policies or frameworks in place

that require establishment of

stock rebuilding timelines and targets based on limit reference points or proxies. Non-target Where appropriate, the (FAO Guidelines species ecolabelling standard rewards on Bycatch the use of alternative fishing gear Management 7.5.1) that results in lower bycatch. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF EBM species that discard reduction and Components 4,7 bycatch management strategies & 8) reflect the fishery’s proportional impact on non-target species. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines species that all significant sources of on Bycatch fishing mortality of non-target Management 4.1.1) species are explicitly considered in fisheries management planning. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines species that management policies are in on Bycatch place that aim to reduce discards. Management 3.1.2) Non-target The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines species requires continuous action and/ on Bycatch or improvement to contribute to Management 2.5) the maximization of post-release survival. Non-target The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines species requires that bycatch on Bycatch management and discard Management 7.1) reduction measures are binding, measurable and implemented. Non-target The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines species explicitly considers the accuracy of on Bycatch data used to determine impacts Management 5.1.4) on discarded species. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines species the collection of data sufficient on Bycatch to provide quantitative estimates Management 5.1.3) of total catch, discards and incidental takes. Non-target Issues related to data accuracy (FAO Guidelines species of non-target species catch are on Bycatch treated in a manner consistent Management 5.1.4) with the precautionary approach. Non-target The ecolabelling standard requires a (FAO Guidelines species comprehensive consideration of best on Bycatch practices of bycatch management Management 4.1.4) and reduction of discards.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 53 Annex 1

New Ecological Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Ecosystem/ Where appropriate the (FAO Guidelines on habitats ecolabelling standard rewards Deep-Sea Fisheries the use of alternative fishing gear Management 71) and additional precautionary management measures that result in lower impacts on ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines on habitats identification of VME species Deep-Sea Fisheries particular to the ecosystem where Management 17) the fishery is taking place. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines on habitats that areas where VMEs are known Deep-Sea Fisheries or likely to occur, to be closed until Management 63) appropriate conservation and management measures have been established to prevent significant adverse impacts. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines on habitats existence of data collection protocol Deep-Sea Fisheries and program for non-target, non- Management 32) commercial species, particularly benthic species which may be impacted during fishing activity. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard (FAO Guidelines on habitats identifies individual fishery and Deep-Sea Fisheries cumulative significant adverse Management 42) impacts on ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard requires (FAO Guidelines on habitats impact assessments, in a manner Deep-Sea Fisheries consistent with FAO Guidelines on Management 47) Deep Sea Fisheries, to determine if fisheries are likely to produce significant adverse impacts. Ecosystem/ The ecolabelling standard considers (FAO Guidelines on habitats the intensity, spatial scale, Deep-Sea Fisheries ecosystem vulnerability, recovery Management 18) potential, and change in ecosystem function in determination of significance of ecosystem impacts in a manner consistent with precautionary management. Forage The ecolabelling standard (Lenfest Forage fisheries considers predator requirements Fisheries Report for forage species. page 7) Forage The ecolabelling standard rewards (Lenfest Forage fisheries spatial and temporal closures Fisheries Report for forage fisheries based on page 7) ecological criteria. Forage The ecolabelling standard includes (Lenfest Forage fisheries a tiered management strategy for Fisheries Report forage species that is related to page 6,8) information availability. Pollution of The ecolabelling standard does (MARPOL Annex water not permit use of highly toxic and V, Regulation 4 persistent antifouling on vessels (http://www.imo. and capture gear (e.g. TBT). org/OurWork/ Environment/ PollutionPrevention/ Garbage/ Documents/ 201%2862%29.pdf)

page 54 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 1

New Ecological Criteria REQUIREMENT IN FORCE IN DRAFT OR UNDERGOING TRIAL

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE CRITERION RELEVANT REFERENCE TEXT OF NOTES BY SOURCE OF IN SCHEME SCHEME SCHEME CRITERION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT OWNER Pollution of The ecolabelling standard requires (MARPOL Annex V, water proper disposal of all non- Regulation 3 biodegradable waste on land. (http://www.imo. org/OurWork/ Environment/ PollutionPrevention /Garbage/ Documents/201% 2862%29.pdf) Loss of fishing The ecolabelling standard requires (MARPOL Annex V, gear precautions to be taken to prevent Regulation 7 the loss of fishing gear. (http://www. imo.org/OurWork/ Environment/ PollutionPrevention /Garbage/ Documents/201% 2862%29.pdf) Subsidies The ecolabelling standard (WWF subsidies requires that there are no harmful policy position) or perverse subsidies used in (WWF, 2004 the fishery that could result in and 2011) unsustainable fish stocks or unhealthy ecosystems. Subsidies The ecolabelling standard requires (WWF subsidies that there are no harmful or policy position) perverse subsidies used in the (WWF, 2004 fishery that could result negative and 2011) environmental impacts. Use of energy The standard requires reduction of (Seafood label and CO2 energy use/emissions of CO2 ranking chart emissions and/or increase in efficiency of provided by energy used per volume of fish WWF CH) landed.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 55 ANNEX 2 The Authors The team includes Mr. James Sullivan as lead consultant, Dr. Susanna D. Fuller and Mr. Jordan Nikoloyuk.

Mr. James Sullivan His work has been at the national and international level. His experience includes serving as Research Associate to the Task force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility, Vice-chair of the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) international Board of Directors, and Founding chair of FSC Canada. As Deputy Executive Director and Operations Director of FSC International he oversaw the international accreditation and standards development programs of FSC. In addition he was a Member of the Canadian Delegation to ISO TC 207 (developing the ISO 14000 series of standards) and a Founder of the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL).

His current clients include the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Accreditation Services International (ASI) and Clean Production Action. James is a Member of the Boards of Directors for Greenpeace Canada and the Sustainability Network.

He holds a Bachelor degree from the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas; a Master of Divinity degree from the University of St. Michael’s College, the University of Toronto and the Toronto School of Theology; and, a Master of Arts degree in Regional Planning and Resource Development from the University of Waterloo. In addition, he is a Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Atlantic Planners Institute.

James’ conflict of interest statement James declares he knows of no relationship (through ownership, family connections of consulting projects) with any party involved in fishing, the fishing industry chain of custody, and certification to MSC, Friend of the Sea and Global Trust standards or consulting to organizations on how to gain MSC, Friend of the Sea or Global Trust certification.

James has provided consulting services to MSC on various projects since 2002; in 2009 he spent six months working full time in the MSC London office; and, was the lead consultant in the project to revise the MSC Certification Requirements. His services to MSC have focused on the management of the accreditation requirements, including the oversight by the accreditation body and the conduct of audits by conformity assessment bodies. His work has not included the content of requirements that directly apply to applicants for MSC fisheries certification except when they impact on the conduct of auditors.

He is currently a Member of the ASI Accreditation Committee which reviews the reports submitted and makes recommendations for decisions by ASI on accreditation, changes in scope of accreditation, suspension and termination of accreditation for conformity assessment bodies for the FSC (forests, chain of custody & controlled wood), MSC (fisheries & chain of custody) and ASC (farm) programs.

page 56 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Annex 2

Dr. Susanna Fuller Susanna has been involved in marine conservation for the past 15 years, through a variety of research and policy aspects as well as market incentives for sustainable fisheries.

Susanna works with the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, Canada on marine conservation. She currently coordinates the High Seas Alliance, an international organization of 24 non-government organizations working towards improved governance on the high seas. In the past, Susanna has done work for the Pew Environmental Group and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, largely in the interface between science and policy at the United Nations and Regional Fisheries Management Organization level.

Susanna completed her PhD. In 2011 from Dalhousie University on the subject of marine sponge diversity in the North West Atlantic. Her scientific research has also been complimented by extensive work on national and international fisheries and marine conservation policy. In the past, Susanna has done contract work for Fisheries and Oceans Canada on a review of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement implementation at the level of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. She has also been involved in national policy development through the Canadian Sustainable Fisheries Framework, which includes policies on protecting benthic areas, bycatch, precautionary frameworks and rebuilding strategies.

Through her understanding of scientific research, knowledge of the broad policy framework for fisheries and marine conservation at the national and international level, as well as involvement in seafood markets work through SeaChoice, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Salmon Aquaculture Dialogues, and MSC stakeholder processes, Susanna is very familiar with the context within which certifications exist as well as the challenges to achieving measureable change on the water.

Susanna’s conflict of interest statement Susanna declares she knows of no relationship (through ownership, family connections of consulting projects) with any party involved in fishing, the fishing industry chain of custody, and certification to MSC, Friend of the Sea and Global Trust standards or consulting to organizations on how to gain MSC, Friend of the Sea or Global Trust certification.

Susanna has been involved in numerous MSC stakeholder processes, primarily in Atlantic Canada. Susanna has not been involved with any entity seeking MSC certification, or any other certification and her focus has been bringing additional information into the stakeholder processes to ensure credibility of the assessment by the Certification Body. Susanna sits on the Steering Committee of SeaChoice, a Canadian affiliate organization to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program. She has been involved in revising the criteria for MBA and SeaChoice from a science advisory perspective.

Susanna participates in the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions and as a result is familiar with many of the ongoing efforts in benchmarking and eliminating discrepancies between seafood certification and ranking programs.

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 57 Annex 2

Mr. Jordan Nikoloyuk Jordan has worked on labelling and certification of food and commodity products in both fisheries and agricultural sectors. He holds a Master of Science degree in Sustainable Development: Environmental Policy and Management from Utrecht University, Netherlands and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Jordan completed his thesis on agricultural commodity certification through a work placement in Unilever’s Department of Sustainable Agriculture.

Jordan’s work on fisheries and marine conservation policy has been complemented by scientific research on certification schemes including the Marine Stewardship Council, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, the Round Table on Responsible Soy, Fairtrade International, and the Rainforest Alliance.

Jordan currently works with the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia on a number of marine conservation issues and towards building market incentives for sustainable fisheries.

Jordan’s conflict of interest statement Jordan declares he knows of no relationship (through ownership, family connections of consulting projects) with any party involved in fishing, the fishing industry chain of custody, and certification to MSC, Friend of the Sea and Global Trust standards or consulting to organizations on how to gain MSC, Friend of the Sea or Global Trust certification.

Jordan has been involved in numerous MSC stakeholder processes in Atlantic Canada and public policy consultations. Jordan has not been involved with any entity seeking MSC certification or any other certification. His participation in stakeholder processes and consultations has been for the purpose of bringing additional information to the attention of certification bodies and policy development groups to ensure the credibility of assessments. He has had no financial interests in the outcome of consultation processes.

page 58 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update ENDNOTES 1 The 2009 ADP report refers to Responsible Fisheries Iceland. Iceland Responsible Fisheries is the currently accepted title for this certification scheme 2 Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels: An independent assessment by Accenture Development Partners (ADP), Accenture AG, Zürich, Switzerland, December 2009 3 Stokstad, E. (2011). Seafood Eco-Label Grapples With Challenge of Proving Its Impact. Science, 334(6057), 746-746, Jacquet, J., Pauly, D., Ainley, D., Holt, S., Dayton, P., & Jackson, J. (2010). Seafood stewardship in crisis. Nature, 467(7311), 28-29. Kaiser, M. J., & Hill, L. (2010). Marine stewardship: a force for good. Nature, 467(7315), 531- 531. Oosterveer, P., & Spaargaren, G. (2011). Organising consumer involvement in the greening of global food flows: the role of environmental NGOs in the case of marine fish. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 97-114 4 ISO/IED Guide 65 General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, First edition, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1996 5 ISO/IED 17065 Conformity Assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012 6 FAO-Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Program: Conformance Criteria, Version 1.2 (September 2011) [NOTE – no author, location or publisher included in this document] 7 Responsible Fisheries Management Cain of Custody Standard for Alaska Seafood, Issue 1 Revision 0, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau, Alaska, March 2011 8 Certification and Accreditation Procedure, Code 004, Version 1, Friend of the Sea, Milano, Italy, 6 August 2009 9 Friend of the Sea Certification Criteria Checklist for Wild Catch Fisheries, Friend of the Sea, Milano, Italy, 11 May 2010 10 Friend of the Sea Certification Criteria Checklist for Tuna Purse Seine and Longline Fleets, Friend of the Sea, Milano, Italy, 11 May 2012 11 FAO-Based Responsible Fisheries Management Certification Program: Conformance Criteria, Version 1.2 (September 2011) [NOTE – no author, location or publisher included in this document] 12 Responsible Fisheries Management Chain of Custody Specification: A Tool for Voluntary Use in Markets for Certified Products of Marine Capture Fisheries, Issue 2, Fisheries Association of Iceland, February 2011 13 MSC Certification Requirements, Version 1.2, Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK, 10 January 2012 14 MSC Chain of Custody Standard, Version 3, Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK, 15 August 2012 15 MSC Standard Setting Procedure 2.0, Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK, 2 March 2011 16 Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels: An independent assessment by Accenture Development Partners (ADP), Accenture AG, Zürich, Switzerland, December 2009, Section 3.4

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 59 Endnotes

17 ISO/IED 17065 Conformity Assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012 18 ISEAL Credibility Principles, Public Draft for Comment 0.1 – May, 2010, ISEAL Alliance, London, UK, 2010 19 Code of Good Practice for Assuring Conformance with Social and Environmental Standards: Public Draft for Consultation, Version 0.2 – 02 April, 2012, ISEAL Alliance, London, UK, 2012 20 FIRO/R957 (En)Report of the Technical Consultation to Develop International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards, FAO, 2010 21 SPRFMO-VI-SWG-INF01 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas, FAO, 2008 22 A/RES/59/25 - Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments 23 A/RES/61/105 - Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments 24 Little Fish, Big Impact: A summary of new scientific analysis, managing a crucial link in ocean food webs. A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, Lenfest Ocean Program: Protecting Ocean Life Through Marine Science, Washington DC, US, April 2012 25 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Annex IV, International Maritime Organization, London, UK, 1997 26 WWF 2004. Healthy Fisheries, Sustainable Trade: Crafting new rules on fishing subsidies in the World Trade Organization. 178 pages Available online at http://www.wto.org/ english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp43_wwf_e.pdf 27 WWF 2011. Reforming Fisheries Subsidies. Maximizing the value of government investments in the fisheries sector through fact based research and stakeholder dialogue. 12p, Available online at http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/ wwf_briefing_on_subsidies_reform_.pdf 28 http://www.friendofthesea.org/fisheries.asp?ID=7 29 http://www.msc.org/business-support/msc-annual-report 30 http://sustainability.alaskaseafood.org/fisheries 31 http://www.responsiblefisheries.is/certification/certified-fisheries/ 32 http://www.friendofthesea.org/fisheries.asp?ID=7 33 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified 34 http://www.friendofthesea.org/aquaculture.asp

page 60 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update Smart Fishing Initiative

NOTES:

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update page 61 Smart Fishing Initiative

NOTES:

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

______

page 62 WWF: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes – Update THE WWF NETWORK* WWF Offices Armenia Hong Kong Suriname Azerbaijan Hungary Sweden Australia India Switzerland Austria Indonesia Tanzania Belgium Italy Thailand Belize Japan Tunisia Bhutan Kenya Turkey Bolivia Laos Uganda Brazil Madagascar United Arab Emirates Bulgaria Malaysia United Kingdom Cambodia Mauritania United States of America Cameroon Mexico Vietnam Canada Mongolia Zambia Central African Republic Mozambique Zimbabwe

Chile Namibia China Nepal Colombia Netherlands WWF Associates Costa Rica New Zealand Fundación Vida Silvestre D.R. of Congo Norway (Argentina) Denmark Pakistan Fundación Natura (Ecuador) Panama Ecuador Pasaules Dabas Fonds Finland Papua New Guinea (Latvia)

Fiji Paraguay Nigerian Conservation France Peru Foundation (Nigeria) Gabon Philippines Gambia Poland *As at December 2011 Georgia Romania Germany Russia Ghana Senegal Greece Singapore Guatemala Solomon Islands Guyana South Africa Honduras Spain WWF in numbers • 100% COMPARISON OF WILD FISHERIES CAPTURE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES: UPDATE RECYCLED >100

WWF works in more than 100 countries, on 6 continents >5M We have more than 5 million supporters

>5,000 WWF has more than 1961 5,000 staff worldwide WWF.PANDA.ORG WWF, a leading organization since 1961 / © Brent Stirton / Getty Images / WWF Images / Getty Stirton © Brent

Why we are here SMARTFISHING To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

panda.org

1986 panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) ® “WWF” WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland For contact details and further information, visit our international website at panda.org